Cyclists should do a theory test!

Qualitymark

A suggestion: what about if drivers who show ignorance of traffic law and good practice by, for instance,

• failing to indicate in good time
• turning without indicating
• breaking red lights
• halting on box junctions
• driving dangerously close to cyclists
• inappropriate use of horns
• driving over the speed limit
• driving in a bus lane
• using a phone while driving

were automatically sent a notice, triggered by the on-street cameras, instructing them that they're busted down to the provisional licence, and now have to pay for, retake and pass a driving test within three months to regain their full licence (which will, of course, affect their insurance)?

steamengine

RainyDay wrote: »

You know that helmets aren't required by law, right? And that those countries that brought in mandatory helmet laws generally showed no reduced injury rates but did manage to reduce rates of people cycling - which makes cycling even more dangerous for the rest of us.


We lose the opportunity to reduce the death and injury rate on the roads caused by motorists. By focusing policy makers, legislators and Garda enforcers on the question of cycle theory tests, we take resources away from cutting the 200+ deaths and thousands of injuries caused by motorists each year.

What problem will this solve again?

What some people who object to helmets need to experience is having their heads banged off concrete, and provided it's not sufficient to split their heads open, then perhaps they might wear one next time round. It's not necessarily about fatalities - just that some of us don't like pain and injury.

Classic last paragraph - 2 wheels good - 4 wheels bad. It's all the motorists fault would need to be backed up, just because their involved in accidents doesn't mean they caused them.

MadDog76

Qualitymark wrote: »

A suggestion: what about if drivers who show ignorance of traffic law and good practice by, for instance,

• failing to indicate in good time
• turning without indicating
• breaking red lights
• halting on box junctions
• driving dangerously close to cyclists
• inappropriate use of horns
• driving over the speed limit
• driving in a bus lane
• using a phone while driving

were automatically sent a notice, triggered by the on-street cameras, instructing them that they're busted down to the provisional licence, and now have to pay for, retake and pass a driving test within three months to regain their full licence (which will, of course, affect their insurance)?

And cyclists who break the law .......... any repercussions suggested for them?

316

MadDog76 wrote: »

And cyclists who break the law .......... any repercussions suggested for them?

They have to cycle single file for six months and not wear sun glasses.

steamengine

316 wrote: »

They have to cycle single file for six months and not wear sun glasses.

..........and their lycra filled with ants !

moneymad

moc moc a moc wrote: »

They're just as bad as Hitler in my book.

Genrikh Yagoda was one of the greatest genocidal mass murderers of all time. Poor Hitler gets an awful doing. The sh!te they teach in schools these days....
Read some more books.

RainyDay

steamengine wrote: »

What some people who object to helmets need to experience is having their heads banged off concrete, and provided it's not sufficient to split their heads open, then perhaps they might wear one next time round. It's not necessarily about fatalities - just that some of us don't like pain and injury.

Where exactly did I 'object to helmets'?

There is a huge difference between recommending cyclists wear helmets and making helmets mandatory by law. What some people who jump to conclusions need to understand is that wherever mandatory helmet laws have been introduced, they have not worked.

steamengine wrote: »

Classic last paragraph - 2 wheels good - 4 wheels bad. It's all the motorists fault would need to be backed up, just because their involved in accidents doesn't mean they caused them.

Have you actually looked at road safety statistics at all? Last year there were 200+ deaths on the road. 12 of these were cyclists, leaving 188+ involving motorists and pedestrians. So even (and it's a big leap) if we accept for the sake of argument that ALL of those 12 incidents were the fault of cyclists, the other 188 incidents had no involvement of cyclists at all. So this theory test is going to focus on possibly reducing 12 deaths, while ignoring the 188 deaths. Is that really sensible at all?

furiousox

steamengine wrote: »

..........and their lycra filled with ants !

That's below the belt!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Build a big arena, you know, like the one they had in ancient Rome. One team would consist of motorised users, another team of self propelled vehicles and then the third team would be non vehicle users. Each team is selected the month before buy their own "type". On the last Friday of each month, they all fight to the death with medievil weapons. The winners get to chose the rules of the road for the following month, but they only have until the first Monday of the next month to decide on those rules. It makes things a lot more interesting and I think would build up a great sense of comradeship. It sure beats the hell out of debating this crap online every other day.

Knasher

http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-centre-cycling-greenwave-new-traffic-light-system-2157110-Jun2015/
Looks like they are introducing a greenway in Dublin. Really good idea that actually will encourage people to obey traffic lights. Hope it is expanded elsewhere.

arybvtcw0eolkf

RainyDay wrote: »

Have you actually looked at road safety statistics at all? Last year there were 200+ deaths on the road. 12 of these were cyclists, leaving 188+ involving motorists and pedestrians. So even (and it's a big leap) if we accept for the sake of argument that ALL of those 12 incidents were the fault of cyclists, the other 188 incidents had no involvement of cyclists at all. So this theory test is going to focus on possibly reducing 12 deaths, while ignoring the 188 deaths. Is that really sensible at all?

I believe you have just spanked, owned and made this thread your bitch

NotCominBack

Knasher wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-centre-cycling-greenwave-new-traffic-light-system-2157110-Jun2015/
Looks like they are introducing a greenway in Dublin. Really good idea that actually will encourage people to obey traffic lights. Hope it is expanded elsewhere.

great, more cyclists on footpaths, just what we need

wtlltw

wexandproud wrote: »

im a cyclist and i know what the yellow box is and what its for and how to use them but its still motorists who block them , maby they dont know

Kindly explain.

Lights are red, I'm a motorist entering a yellow box ready to turn right.

StewartGriffin

RainyDay wrote: »

Have you actually looked at road safety statistics at all? Last year there were 200+ deaths on the road. 12 of these were cyclists, leaving 188+ involving motorists and pedestrians. So even (and it's a big leap) if we accept for the sake of argument that ALL of those 12 incidents were the fault of cyclists, the other 188 incidents had no involvement of cyclists at all. So this theory test is going to focus on possibly reducing 12 deaths, while ignoring the 188 deaths. Is that really sensible at all?

Rhett Wide Beige wrote: »

I believe you have just spanked, owned and made this thread your bitch

Firstly, doing a theory test, is not only about reducing deaths on the road, but is about people educating themselves to be better road users. so they don't continuously break laws such as running red lights, cycling on pedestrian bridges, weaving between moving cars, generally causing a nuisance.

Secondly, to question if implementing a short theory test to focus on saving 12 lives a year is "really sensible at all?" is a very odd question in my opinion.
12 deaths a year might sound insignificant to you, but it's one human being killed every month. One of these might be a relative of yours someday.

Spanked, owned and made this thread? Get the cheerleader in the tutu! Go Rhett Wide Beige - Raa! Raa! Raa!

arybvtcw0eolkf

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Firstly, doing a theory test, is not only about reducing deaths on the road, but is about people educating themselves to be better road users. so they don't continuously break laws such as running red lights, cycling on pedestrian bridges, weaving between moving cars, generally causing a nuisance.

Secondly, to question if implementing a short theory test to focus on saving 12 lives a year is "really sensible at all?" is a very odd question in my opinion.
12 deaths a year might sound insignificant to you, but it's one human being killed every month. One of these might be a relative of yours someday.

Spanked, owned and made this thread? Get the cheerleader in the tutu! Go Makikomi - Raa! Raa! Raa!

Not one bit of that makes one once of sense to me.

StewartGriffin

Rhett Wide Beige wrote: »

Not one bit of that makes one once of sense to me.

I don't know how to reply to that.

Maybe read it again?

Slower.

SHOVELLER

Theory test?

How about the cops do their jobs and actually enforce the law? No cycling on footpaths just to start with.

RainyDay

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Firstly, doing a theory test, is not only about reducing deaths on the road, but is about people educating themselves to be better road users. so they don't continuously break laws such as running red lights, cycling on pedestrian bridges, weaving between moving cars, generally causing a nuisance.

Secondly, to question if implementing a short theory test to focus on saving 12 lives a year is "really sensible at all?" is a very odd question in my opinion.
12 deaths a year might sound insignificant to you, but it's one human being killed every month. One of these might be a relative of yours someday.

You seem to be missing two important issues, Stewie?

1: The existence of a theory test hasn't stopped motorists from continuously breaking laws such as running red lights, driving on cycle paths, weaving between moving cars and generally causing a nuisance. Why would you expect it to work on cyclists?
2) Focus on the 12 cycling deaths misses an opportunity to focus on the 188 motoring deaths. Why would you be so passionate about saving 1 death a month while ignoring the 15-20 deaths a month caused by motorists? 4 or 5 of these could be a relative of yours someday.

wexandproud

wtlltw wrote: »

Kindly explain.

Lights are red, I'm a motorist entering a yellow box ready to turn right.

im not a driving instructor , go and learn the rules of the road

steamengine

RainyDay wrote: »

Where exactly did I 'object to helmets'?

There is a huge difference between recommending cyclists wear helmets and making helmets mandatory by law. What some people who jump to conclusions need to understand is that wherever mandatory helmet laws have been introduced, they have not worked.



Have you actually looked at road safety statistics at all? Last year there were 200+ deaths on the road. 12 of these were cyclists, leaving 188+ involving motorists and pedestrians. So even (and it's a big leap) if we accept for the sake of argument that ALL of those 12 incidents were the fault of cyclists, the other 188 incidents had no involvement of cyclists at all. So this theory test is going to focus on possibly reducing 12 deaths, while ignoring the 188 deaths. Is that really sensible at all?

Have you ? - for starters there were 196 road fatalities last year.

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Press%20Office/Provisional%20review%20of%20Road%20Crashes%202014.pdf

Grandpa Hassan

steamengine wrote: »

Have you ? - for starters there were 196 road fatalities last year.

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Press%20Office/Provisional%20review%20of%20Road%20Crashes%202014.pdf

oh....that's okay then

steamengine

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

oh....that's okay then

Oh, definitely not - but neither is the doubling of cycling fatalities from 5 in 2013 to 12 in 2014.

wtlltw

wexandproud wrote: »

im not a driving instructor , go and learn the rules of the road

Will do

StewartGriffin

RainyDay wrote: »

You seem to be missing two important issues, Stewie?

1: The existence of a theory test hasn't stopped motorists from continuously breaking laws such as running red lights, driving on cycle paths, weaving between moving cars and generally causing a nuisance. Why would you expect it to work on cyclists?
2) Focus on the 12 cycling deaths misses an opportunity to focus on the 188 motoring deaths. Why would you be so passionate about saving 1 death a month while ignoring the 15-20 deaths a month caused by motorists? 4 or 5 of these could be a relative of yours someday.

Your logic is pathetically weak, Rainy?

A theory test is there to educate road users, why shouldn't all road users receive the same education? Your answer seems to be "let's ignore cyclists until motorists become perfect. Never going to happen.

And I can't believe your still spouting that nonsense about 188 versus 12 road deaths. So what if more drivers than cyclists are killed? You seem to think it's some kind of contest.

And have you somehow missed the huge road safety campaigns aimed at motorists this last decade?

the groutch

RainyDay wrote: »

Have you actually looked at road safety statistics at all? Last year there were 200+ deaths on the road. 12 of these were cyclists, leaving 188+ involving motorists and pedestrians. So even (and it's a big leap) if we accept for the sake of argument that ALL of those 12 incidents were the fault of cyclists, the other 188 incidents had no involvement of cyclists at all. So this theory test is going to focus on possibly reducing 12 deaths, while ignoring the 188 deaths. Is that really sensible at all?

how do you know that some of those 188 weren't caused by cyclists?

ThisRegard

SHOVELLER wrote: »

Theory test?

How about the cops do their jobs and actually enforce the law? No cycling on footpaths just to start with.

Ahem

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/cyclists-should-have-insurance-says-judge-1.2246540

Although that guy would have gotten himself arrested on a space hopper. What's relevant is that's he's a scumbag, not a cyclist. He just happened to be a scumbag on a bike.


But the judges comments about insurance are pretty stupid and irrelevant, given the guy didn't hit anyone or cause an accident, and with his history, would probably be driving without insurance, never mind cycling without it.

CramCycle

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Your logic is pathetically weak, Rainy?

A theory test is there to educate road users, why shouldn't all road users receive the same education? Your answer seems to be "let's ignore cyclists until motorists become perfect. Never going to happen.

And I can't believe your still spouting that nonsense about 188 versus 12 road deaths. So what if more drivers than cyclists are killed? You seem to think it's some kind of contest.

And have you somehow missed the huge road safety campaigns aimed at motorists this last decade?

Are people really that ignorant. Its a cost to benefit issue.

The cost of implementing a theory test for cyclists, let alone the cost of legislation and enforcement which in its entirety, which will probably do more damage to public health over time is humongous and unjustifiable at this point in time.

Should that money, if only a fraction be spent on enforcement on all road users (cyclists included), the benefits would be far more wide spread, population behaviour is infectious, you have enough people with it, then everyone will get it. Best way to do this is to enforce the negatives of not behaving correctly, where people will remember it for along time eg fines.

smash

Cyclists should have insurance, says judge

ThisRegard

2 posts up.

Qualitymark

It's really kind that people are shocked by the doubled numbers of cyclists killed last year.

But please remember that every one of the cyclists who died was killed by a car or truck.