Cyclists mega-thread (WARNING: Before posting you must read post #1)

dubscottie

bigar wrote: »

HINT: when a cyclist looks over his shoulder it means he is likely to do a manoeuvre and wants to check if the road is clear. It obviously was case here and the road was clear until you decided to overtake him. You saw him do this but still decided to overtake him. Proving again there is a long way to go for driver's education in regards of other road users.

Sorry should have made myself clear.. He looked over his shoulder as I was starting to overtake him.. What he did was deliberate. The road was clear and after a lot of slowing down on my part to work out what this clown was at, a car was coming towards us at this point, both of us on the wrong side of the road.

Why does every cyclist have do justify there actions with bull****? Some of the replies here are worthy of the "most self entitled thing you have seen" thread in AH!

dubscottie

rp wrote: »

You are correct in as much that it is not an explicit stipulation of the Road Traffic Act, but it is incorporated in case law in Ireland, which mean in the event of an accident, a motorist who did not give 1.5m clearance is likely to be judged as being at fault / convicted of dangerous driving.
It'd be better for all concerned if this was policed a priori to prevent incidents, rather than just in apportioning blame afterwards.

Source? Remember that the person is in charge of their own vehicle. It is not up to cyclists to decide, or tell other road users what to do.

In my case, had I had a wee camera, I would have gone straight to the Garda with it.. But no doubt you would have found some justification for illegal actions by a cyclist as always happens here..

Jawgap

dubscottie wrote: »

Sorry should have made myself clear.. He looked over his shoulder as I was starting to overtake him.. What he did was deliberate. The road was clear and after a lot of slowing down on my part to work out what this clown was at, a car was coming towards us at this point, both of us on the wrong side of the road.

Why does every cyclist have do justify there actions with bull****? Some of the replies here are worthy of the "most self entitled thing you have seen" thread in AH!

......or he was simply reacting to the noise of the bike, by looking to see what was happening.

Let's face it, you, me and everyone else have no idea what the cyclist's motivations were......yes, it could have been intentional (I doubt it, but that's just my opinion); it could have been reckless (not taking account of other road users); or, it could've been careless (not focusing on what was happening around him).

You choose to ascribe malevolent intent to his actions purely on the basis of the fact that you were there......when in reality you have no idea whether he was just being nasty or nervous.

John_C

Jawgap wrote: »

......or he was simply reacting to the noise of the bike, by looking to see what was happening.

Let's face it, you, me and everyone else have no idea what the cyclist's motivations were......yes, it could have been intentional (I doubt it, but that's just my opinion); it could have been reckless (not taking account of other road users); or, it could've been careless (not focusing on what was happening around him).

You choose to ascribe malevolent intent to his actions purely on the basis of the fact that you were there......when in reality you have no idea whether he was just being nasty or nervous.

It's also possible the cyclist was just being a d**k.
Like dubscottie said, everyone's in charge of their own vehicle. Dubscottie is in the wrong for the original dangerous overtaking and, if his suspicions are true, the cyclist is in the wrong for making it even more dangerous again.

Macy0161

dubscottie wrote: »

Sorry should have made myself clear.. He looked over his shoulder as I was starting to overtake him.. What he did was deliberate. The road was clear and after a lot of slowing down on my part to work out what this clown was at, a car was coming towards us at this point, both of us on the wrong side of the road.

Why does every cyclist have do justify there actions with bull****? Some of the replies here are worthy of the "most self entitled thing you have seen" thread in AH!

Sounds like you should've pulled out the move tbh, rather than squeeze past, once there was a car coming.

bigar

CramCycle wrote: »

+1, its good practice, I think it is well recognised that good roadcraft includes looking behind yourself every 10 to 15 seconds (use a timer, its not as short a distance as one might think), in much the same way if you looked in your mirrors less than that you would probably get marked down in your driving test.

I have a very hard time imagining cyclists looking behind them every 15 seconds or even at all when they just go straight ahead. I doubt very much a lot of cyclist do this and I see no use for it myself, providing of course you do no manoeuvre.

bigar

John_C wrote: »

It's also possible the cyclist was just being a d**k.

Of course it is possible but you should still be careful when you are driving. When I am driving I always am extra careful where my car mixes with "weaker" traffic. I give them all the space they need no matter how idiotic they behave. Better being safe than hitting them and causing harm.

When I travel through the city centre, I accept that the space is mainly for pedestrians (and cyclists) and adjust my speed. Judging by what I see during my daily travels is that very few other drivers do. Dublin traffic users (pedestrians up to busses) are the most ego centrical people I know. As long as they can keep moving, the rest can go to hell.

beauf

bigar wrote: »

I have a very hard time imagining cyclists looking behind them every 15 seconds or even at all when they just go straight ahead. I doubt very much a lot of cyclist do this and I see no use for it myself, providing of course you do no manoeuvre.

I do it a lot. Both to check for other cyclists overtaking, checking for cars and making eye contact with drivers. Situational awareness etc. Its like checking your mirrors in the car.

A lot of people don't do either. Thats life.

CramCycle

bigar wrote: »

I have a very hard time imagining cyclists looking behind them every 15 seconds or even at all when they just go straight ahead. I doubt very much a lot of cyclist do this and I see no use for it myself, providing of course you do no manoeuvre.

What's the point in doing it in a car then?

cython

bigar wrote: »

I have a very hard time imagining cyclists looking behind them every 15 seconds or even at all when they just go straight ahead. I doubt very much a lot of cyclist do this and I see no use for it myself, providing of course you do no manoeuvre.

CramCycle wrote: »

What's the point in doing it in a car then?

Personally I think the frequency with which I look over my shoulder depends on the circumstances in which I'm cycling. For example, if I'm commuting and as a result find myself in the city centre, I would tend to look over my shoulder very frequently, because the situation around me has a lot more variables, and may change drastically more suddenly. By extension, there is a greater likelihood of my having to react to a sudden change or hazard in front of me. In addition to this, it is harder to trust my other senses (primarily hearing) in this setting, as there will always be traffic noise, and it willl tell me less.

By contrast, if I'm on a back road or up the hills in Wicklow, I can know that an engine behind me means that there is a vehicle directly behind me. Similarly, in many settings like that, I can say with confidence that if there is not a cyclist behind me (which I might not hear) at a given point when I look, one is very unlikely to appear unbeknownst to me for a certain amount of time. However in the city centre a cyclist could be hidden behind another vehicle, or join from one of the much more frequently occurring junctions. In a car I am much more isolated from the sound signature of motorised vehicles, so need to observe at a high frequency no matter where I am.

This may not be foolproof, but it has served me well enough so far.

CramCycle

cython wrote: »

Personally I think the frequency with which I look over my shoulder depends on the circumstances in which I'm cycling. For example, if I'm commuting and as a result find myself in the city centre, I would tend to look over my shoulder very frequently, because the situation around me has a lot more variables, and may change drastically more suddenly. By extension, there is a greater likelihood of my having to react to a sudden change or hazard in front of me. In addition to this, it is harder to trust my other senses (primarily hearing) in this setting, as there will always be traffic noise, and it willl tell me less.

By contrast, if I'm on a back road or up the hills in Wicklow, I can know that an engine behind me means that there is a vehicle directly behind me. Similarly, in many settings like that, I can say with confidence that if there is not a cyclist behind me (which I might not hear) at a given point when I look, one is very unlikely to appear unbeknownst to me for a certain amount of time. However in the city centre a cyclist could be hidden behind another vehicle, or join from one of the much more frequently occurring junctions. In a car I am much more isolated from the sound signature of motorised vehicles, so need to observe at a high frequency no matter where I am.

This may not be foolproof, but it has served me well enough so far.

Honestly that probably not to far from my own behaviour.

LuckyLloyd

I believe that:

- cyclists on main / general roadways should have to pass a basic rules of the road test of some description, and be able to produce certification of same;
- bikes should be registered to an owner. If implemented this would also help to mitigate against theft;
- cyclists on main / general roadways should have third party insurance at minimum;
- cyclists on main / general roadways should pay a fee or tax of some description and be able to produce proof of payment of same;

I also think that future road developments need to start adding cycle lanes that do not cross a footpath or buslane. Road planning authorities and civil engineering companies need to consult with cycling groups when devising new road builds so that the end result is acceptable. Start this process now, and within two or three decades the cycle infrastructure will be drastically improved. We can then look at law creation which forces cyclists off the road and onto cycle lanes which would be to everyone's benefit ultimately.

CramCycle

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

- cyclists on main / general roadways should have to pass a basic rules of the road test of some description, and be able to produce certification of same;

So a child wanting to go out for their first spin can't go out in their estate without sending off a form, sitting a test and waiting upto a year. I can see that working well :pac:

- bikes should be registered to an owner. If implemented this would also help to mitigate against theft;

There is a system for this already in several garda stations, you take the BB number and bring it in with ID. Most people never bother but the truth is it is it won't do anything about bike theft unless they introduce a Cambridge style system and even then all the thief has to do is take it out of Dublin or Ireland.

- cyclists on main / general roadways should have third party insurance at minimum;

For various reasons that have been discussed ad nauseum on other forums this won't be work. Insurance is mandatory for motorists as the potential and chance of causing damage or harm beyond their ability to pay is far greater. The cost of insurance for cyclists would cost far more to administer than would be justifiable for the typical damage caused. There is also an onus on the government to promote healthy behaviour, taxing and insuring cyclists makes it less attractive and therefore potentially lead to an increase in health issues down the line.

- cyclists on main / general roadways should pay a fee or tax of some description and be able to produce proof of payment of same;

Any cyclists who has ever had a job, bought something in an Irish shop has already contributed. I will show off my receipt from my local shop if ever stopped if you want.

Jawgap

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I believe that:

- cyclists on main / general roadways should have to pass a basic rules of the road test of some description, and be able to produce certification of same;
- bikes should be registered to an owner. If implemented this would also help to mitigate against theft;
- cyclists on main / general roadways should have third party insurance at minimum;
- cyclists on main / general roadways should pay a fee or tax of some description and be able to produce proof of payment of same;

,.......

Why do you believe this? and is there an example of a country that has implemented any or all of these measures and seen a noticeable societal benefit?

zl1whqvjs75cdy

I am strongly against this idea of a fee to use the road on a bike. It has no motor, so obviously does not need motor tax. There are no emissions and no damage to the road. Aside from that, since most cyclists are also motorists, choosing to cycle to work actually relieves stress on the infrastructure network, reduces emissions and road wear. Why should cyclists be penalized for this?

Thargor

The cyclist has already paid for their share of the road, more than their share seeing as they pay through their taxes and don't do any damage not to mention don't use the motorway network at all which is what a good chunk of the tax take goes to when spent on roads, why after God knows how many years of this debate can people not get this in their heads?

beauf

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

....We can then look at law creation which forces cyclists off the road and onto cycle lanes which would be to everyone's benefit ultimately....

How so?

Considering they had a law and removed it just recently.

Tenzor07

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I believe that:
- cyclists on main / general roadways should have to pass a basic rules of the road test of some description, and be able to produce certification of same;
- bikes should be registered to an owner. If implemented this would also help to mitigate against theft;
- cyclists on main / general roadways should have third party insurance at minimum;
- cyclists on main / general roadways should pay a fee or tax of some description and be able to produce proof of payment of same;

I also think that future road developments need to start adding cycle lanes that do not cross a footpath or buslane. Road planning authorities and civil engineering companies need to consult with cycling groups when devising new road builds so that the end result is acceptable. Start this process now, and within two or three decades the cycle infrastructure will be drastically improved. We can then look at law creation which forces cyclists off the road and onto cycle lanes which would be to everyone's benefit ultimately.

Some good points, certainly basic training should start at a primary or even pre-school age.... Bring back the Clontarf road training school we had back in the '80's!

What type information would this registration contain? A "license plate" and online database, who can access this? The Owner, the Gardai, anyone?

You had some good points right up to the stage of Tax/insurance/registration documents.... FAIL!

LuckyLloyd

CramCycle wrote: »

So a child wanting to go out for their first spin can't go out in their estate without sending off a form, sitting a test and waiting upto a year. I can see that working well :pac:

Out in their estate? Short hops over and back to the shops? Fine. If they're going to commute to and from school regularly though it would seem important that they have an idea of the rules of the road. Children would be well able to deal with a basic rules of the road type course.

There is a system for this already in several garda stations, you take the BB number and bring it in with ID. Most people never bother but the truth is it is it won't do anything about bike theft unless they introduce a Cambridge style system and even then all the thief has to do is take it out of Dublin or Ireland.

Force compliance with the system, and amend it and improve it as necessary. There would still be bike theft at some level of course, but I refuse to believe such a change would fail to aid the Gardai to a significant extent. It would also obviously be of benefit into road incident investigations.

For various reasons that have been discussed ad nauseum on other forums this won't be work. Insurance is mandatory for motorists as the potential and chance of causing damage or harm beyond their ability to pay is far greater. The cost of insurance for cyclists would cost far more to administer than would be justifiable for the typical damage caused. There is also an onus on the government to promote healthy behaviour, taxing and insuring cyclists makes it less attractive and therefore potentially lead to an increase in health issues down the line.

On a general point, this is an irrelevance when it comes to road policy imo. There are plenty of ways and means to stay healthy and fit that don't involve a bike. The biggest issue that needs to be tackled in this country with regards to preventable early death are nutrition and diet related. Road policy needs to focus on safety and efficiency. Health and fitness concerns shouldn't be a factor.

As such, if we believe a policy is the way to go then it should be implemented. If it discourages cyclists so be it.

A cyclist has the ability to cause the serious injury or death of a pedestrian. That should be insured against imo.

Any cyclists who has ever had a job, bought something in an Irish shop has already contributed. I will show off my receipt from my local shop if ever stopped if you want.

By that logic we would have no water charges, bin charges, tv license, etc. Cyclists require specific road infrastructure build. They should directly contribute to that as users of the road network for that purpose.

Jawgap wrote: »

Why do you believe this? and is there an example of a country that has implemented any or all of these measures and seen a noticeable societal benefit?

I believe it for the reasons stated above. Ireland was the first nation to implement a blanket smoking ban. We did it because we believed it would create a benefit, we didn't wait for another country to jump first or conclude that because no country had it wasn't worth doing.

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

I am strongly against this idea of a fee to use the road on a bike. It has no motor, so obviously does not need motor tax. There are no emissions and no damage to the road. Aside from that, since most cyclists are also motorists, choosing to cycle to work actually relieves stress on the infrastructure network, reduces emissions and road wear. Why should cyclists be penalized for this?

It is not a penalty. We agree on this thread and forum in general that the road infrastructure requires cyclist focussed development. Cyclists should directly contribute to same.

Thargor wrote: »

The cyclist has already paid for their share of the road, more than their share seeing as they pay through their taxes and don't do any damage not to mention don't use the motorway network at all which is what a good chunk of the tax take goes to when spent on roads, why after God knows how many years of this debate can people not get this in their heads?

Again, the take from this fee would be directed towards improvement projects from a cyclist perspective. We need redesigns at junctions up and down the countries to better accomodate cyclists in a segregated manner. Cyclists should pay for this.

beauf wrote: »

How so?

Considering they had a law and removed it just recently.

Any law at present requiring cyclists to use cycle lanes would be nonsensical as we don't have a consistent and safe cycle lane infrastructure across our capital city - nevermind country as a whole. That nevertheless should be the aim though. Cyclists and heavy vehicles don't mix and match well. Where there are humans, there will be human error. Human error in the case of a bike and vehicle can very quickly lead to serious injury or death. The long term goal should be allowing cyclists an ability to commute in a safe and contained manner.

Tenzor07 wrote: »

You had some good points right up to the stage of Tax/insurance/registration documents.... FAIL!

Why is it a fail? Just because we don't do it doesn't mean we shouldn't. There is risk on our roads in commuting with a bike. We need to build infrastructure to support it. Certain cycle models can be quite expensive items that attract a high level of theft.

beauf

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

...Any law at present requiring cyclists to use cycle lanes would be nonsensical as we don't have a consistent and safe cycle lane infrastructure across our capital city - nevermind country as a whole. That nevertheless should be the aim though.

Unless you plan on putting a perfectly designed segregated lane on every road around the country and lane, how is that remotely possible.

Also consider that on a multilane road, the quays for example to turn right you have to change lanes. How can you do this if you have to stay in the cycle lane.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

.Cyclists and heavy vehicles don't mix and match well. Where there are humans, there will be human error. Human error in the case of a bike and vehicle can very quickly lead to serious injury or death. The long term goal should be allowing cyclists an ability to commute in a safe and contained manner....

If it quickly leads to death. Where are your stats of this carnage.

Danjamin1

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Any law at present requiring cyclists to use cycle lanes would be nonsensical as we don't have a consistent and safe cycle lane infrastructure across our capital city - nevermind country as a whole. That nevertheless should be the aim though. Cyclists and heavy vehicles don't mix and match well. Where there are humans, there will be human error. Human error in the case of a bike and vehicle can very quickly lead to serious injury or death. The long term goal should be allowing cyclists an ability to commute in a safe and contained manner.

Why do cyclists need to be segregated to badly in your opinion? Most cyclists manage to use the roads just fine without colliding with other vehicles/pedestrians and for the most part other vehicles interact quite well with cyclists. That said if there is a well surfaced cycle lane that allows me to avoid traffic lights I will use it. but I don't feel that I have to either, I'm just as happy cycling with other traffic.

Tenzor07

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Why is it a fail? Just because we don't do it doesn't mean we shouldn't. There is risk on our roads in commuting with a bike. We need to build infrastructure to support it. Certain cycle models can be quite expensive items that attract a high level of theft.

Your on about creating a system of control and taxation for a very low-impact form of transport which no other country has implemented...

How many deaths have been caused through Cycle - Pedestrian collision? Extremely few if any? So why create a whole system of insurance to pay for something which rarely or never happens?

At what age will a bicyclist have to start paying for using his/her bike? Will there be supplements for those who are unemployed or under 18, who pays for that?

Cyclists impose virtually no wear on road surfaces and require very little space for travel lanes or parking (you can park twelve bicycles in the space of one car). Driving is subsidised--sometimes to an extent that would never be accepted for, say, a transit system--and the money for that subsidy comes from various other taxes--income, sales, property, or a mix thereof. This indicates that cyclists (and other non-drivers including the users of more spatially-efficient transit) are paying excessive taxes in order to accommodate motoring. Car lanes cost MULTIPLE more more amounts of money to build than bike lanes. So each car lane costs non-motorists an amount of the tax they pay.

So, roads which dominate our countryside are not subject to a property tax like your home is, so take up vast acres of land in say Dublin city are not subject to a tax.. So who pays for that? Business owners, pedestrians, cyclists, tourists(VAT), professional and private motorists...

CramCycle

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Out in their estate? Short hops over and back to the shops? Fine. If they're going to commute to and from school regularly though it would seem important that they have an idea of the rules of the road. Children would be well able to deal with a basic rules of the road type course.

So the law only applies at certain times, got ya, sounds good, good luck with that legislation

On a general point, this is an irrelevance when it comes to road policy imo. There are plenty of ways and means to stay healthy and fit that don't involve a bike. The biggest issue that needs to be tackled in this country with regards to preventable early death are nutrition and diet related. Road policy needs to focus on safety and efficiency. Health and fitness concerns shouldn't be a factor.

Cycling in Ireland isn't inherently dangerous, the stats continually bare this out, Dublin in fact is one of the safest cities in Europe to cycle in.

As such, if we believe a policy is the way to go then it should be implemented. If it discourages cyclists so be it.

We don't though, you do, some may agree, some may not, the fact that it hasn't been introduced despite cyclists being on the road for longer than motorists says to me that there isn't really a problem. To introduce such a costly measure for the benefit of a miniscule number of issues is the definition of idiotic. Its like proposing we introduce a pedestrian license on the basis that a minority of pedestrians waddle into traffic.

A cyclist has the ability to cause the serious injury or death of a pedestrian. That should be insured against imo.

Pedestrians have the ability to cause serious injury or death, the truth is though that despite the ability, it is a rarity. If we legislate for every rarity the country would grind to a halt.

By that logic we would have no water charges, bin charges, tv license, etc. Cyclists require specific road infrastructure build. They should directly contribute to that as users of the road network for that purpose.

They require it? News to me, most cyclists use the infrastructure already there, they generally improve traffic conditions for motorists at commuting times as with our one car, one person culture, its not a leap to stretch that for every 2 cyclists on the road that is one more motor vehicle adding to a traffic jam.

I believe it for the reasons stated above. Ireland was the first nation to implement a blanket smoking ban. We did it because we believed it would create a benefit, we didn't wait for another country to jump first or conclude that because no country had it wasn't worth doing.

For health reasons, you said earlier that you didn't care if cycling was decreased and then compare your suggestion to be equivalent to the smoking ban. The bike registration is a good idea but but the tax/insurance makes no sense on any level.

It is not a penalty. We agree on this thread and forum in general that the road infrastructure requires cyclist focussed development. Cyclists should directly contribute to same.

I don't, I think it may be beneficial and have no objection to it, as such I am unsure why any motorists would object for reasons above. But I for one don't need it but if it is implemented I will contribute, through the borderline crippling level of tax I already pay.

Again, the take from this fee would be directed towards improvement projects from a cyclist perspective. We need redesigns at junctions up and down the countries to better accomodate cyclists in a segregated manner. Cyclists should pay for this.

Again we don't need it, money would be better spent on education for the public, not ads by the RSA but enforcement of the law more stringently by AGS (not possible due to staffing/time/money issues at the moment but this is where I would prefer it spent but its not my decision to make.

Any law at present requiring cyclists to use cycle lanes would be nonsensical as we don't have a consistent and safe cycle lane infrastructure across our capital city - nevermind country as a whole. That nevertheless should be the aim though. Cyclists and heavy vehicles don't mix and match well. Where there are humans, there will be human error. Human error in the case of a bike and vehicle can very quickly lead to serious injury or death. The long term goal should be allowing cyclists an ability to commute in a safe and contained manner.

Contained? surely the aim would be to have all road users behave in a safe and practical manner, therefore the need to have cyclists "contained" would be nullified.

beauf

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

...
A cyclist has the ability to cause the serious injury or death of a pedestrian. That should be insured against imo. ....

Again where are your stats on this. Because the return on such a system has to outweigh the costs.

beauf

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

...As such, if we believe a policy is the way to go then it should be implemented. If it discourages cyclists so be it. ...

Policy is to reduce car traffic. By facilitating other forms of transport.

As such I would have thought, that the point of cycle infrastructure is primarily to encourage cycling.

Jawgap

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I believe it for the reasons stated above. Ireland was the first nation to implement a blanket smoking ban. We did it because we believed it would create a benefit, we didn't wait for another country to jump first or conclude that because no country had it wasn't worth doing.

The population health outcomes associated with smoking are both negative and well understood - that's why the State puts so much effort into discouraging the activity. It's quite clear that fewer people smoking creates a significant public health benefit. You don't have to be an epidemiologist to know that less people smoking, more people giving it up and a greater proportion not taking it up in the first place is a good thing.

The public health outcomes associated with physical activity (including cycling) are both positive and well understood - therefore the state should not be increasing or creating barriers to participation but should be actively trying to identify those barriers that already exist and removing or at least reducing them. It's either that or prepare for a an even greater health budget (and substantial UHI premia)

Where is the evidence that the measures you suggested would bring about a societal, public health or economic benefit? How would increasing the barriers to cycling (and reducing participant numbers) be a good thing?

beauf

Ireland wouldn't be the first country to try these things, some of them have even been tried here before.

patrickbrophy18

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I believe that:
- cyclists on main / general roadways should have to pass a basic rules of the road test of some description, and be able to produce certification of same;

I do agree to a certain extent. However, I do think a more comprehensive structure could be placed around that which would incorporate all types of road user. For example, from junior infants, schools could incorporate cycling into the PE (Physical Education) module given the health benefits. Meanwhile, drivers education (or Drivers Ed) could be built in to the transition year curriculum. Both activities would be scheduled simultaneously. A track for cars and cyclists would be provided where both would intersect at various points.

When the student driver is brought out on the course, they would be accompanied by an instructor in a specially modified car with a kill switch. At the same time, kids would be using the cycle track. If the student driver fails to look out for or anticipate the cyclists actions or their reaction would be deemed to late, the instructor would pull the kill switch. With enough adhesion and a responsive set of wheels, the car should stop dead immediately. The test car would have a built in speed limiter to make it easier to stop when the kill switch is pulled. It would still resemble a car from the outside.

A docket system would be put in place whereby the danger of the student driver would be assessed. This would only apply if the student was seen to be deliberately driving irresponsibly or showing off. If they incurred a certain number of dockets, they would be given detention and a hiatus from drivers ed. By a similar demonstration, kids who cycle or run out in front of the car without looking left and right would be given lines to write out. The ideal result would be an instilled, long lasting respect between motorists, cyclist and pedestrians.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

- bikes should be registered to an owner. If implemented this would also help to mitigate against theft;

This measure is way over the top. Bicycles should be available for use by anyone. Nevertheless, there should be a rule governing the size of the bike and the size of the person using it as you can't have a kid using a full size mountain bike. There may already be a rule so feel free to enlighten me!:D

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

- cyclists on main / general roadways should have third party insurance at minimum;

As is the case now, this should remain entirely optional as cars do more damage upon impact than a bicycle would.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

- cyclists on main / general roadways should pay a fee or tax of some description and be able to produce proof of payment of same;

I strongly disagree as they are part of the solution to the climate change epidemic. In light of recent comments from other posters, motor tax is based purely on the CO2 emissions. The term "motor tax" should be changed to "carbon tax" to better describe what it's paying for. Having said that, I think that cars powered entirely by electricity shouldn't have any tax. I do think that it's unfair on non-motorists to pick up the slack left from the hidden remains of motor tax.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I also think that future road developments need to start adding cycle lanes that do not cross a footpath or buslane. Road planning authorities and civil engineering companies need to consult with cycling groups when devising new road builds so that the end result is acceptable. Start this process now, and within two or three decades the cycle infrastructure will be drastically improved. We can then look at law creation which forces cyclists off the road and onto cycle lanes which would be to everyone's benefit ultimately.

I completely agree with this alright. Having a lick of paint on a bus corridor or road isn't enough to deter a motorist/bus driver from invading cycle lane illegally. This holds true for quality bus corridors which double as cycle lanes like The Rock Road. The key to a safe road network is grade separation or complete segregation in places. Squeezing motorists (including bus and truck drivers) and cyclists onto tighter tarmac arteries is asking for trouble. This is due in part to a reduced margin for error on part of both motorist and cyclist. Obviously, depending on the width of the vehicle (be it bicycle, car, truck or bus) would determine the width of the lanes they travel on. Ultimately, I would like to see the latter three modes becoming electrified to remove their dependence on petrol or other harmful gasses.

Cookie_Monster

for all those " pass a test" posters, you do of course realise that a citizen is expected to be knowledgeable of all laws of the country and ignorance of such laws is not a valid excuse. Everyone should know the Rules fo the Road (RTA really) regardless of cycling, driving, walking etc.

It's a non issue.

As for a 'road' or 'bike' tax, there is no reason. It's in the governments interest to get more people cycling, it lowers the future health burden, it lessens emissions, it lowers road maintenance costs. Taxing cyclist would be hugely counter productive and the state knows this and won't introduce any kind of tax as a disincentive.

And as for insurance, there should be no mandatory insurance for motorists, never mind cyclists. It's a ridiculous system that needs reform from the ground up.

laraghrider

The thing is though most of us cyclist do pay a tax. We are also drivers and as a result I pay motor tax so I am contributing to all this lovely cycling infrastructure we have in this country.