Cyclists should do a theory test!

Knasher

smash wrote: »

If they were out to fill a quota I'm sure they would, but common sense should dictate that they shouldn't. In the same vain, if there was a quota for cyclist fines I'm sure Gardai would ditch their common sense and target cyclists quite heavily.

Exactly. It is a matter of obeying the spirit of the law and common sense, rather than the letter, which generally is the approach used (apart perhaps when the Gardai are running some campaign). But the fact is that traffic laws are set up with regards to motorists, so are far fewer cases where the law doesn't reflect motorist safety.

Generally I obey traffic lights, but I could quite safely regard them as a motorist would a stop sign with a pedestrian crossing, especially when making a left turn. There are also traffic lights that are triggered by a magnet under the road, which my bike simple cannot trigger. Am I to sit there and wait till a car shows up behind me to let me through, when the road I'm joining is completely clear, or am I to obey the spirit of the law?

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

Of course they are. That's why you have steering wheel air-bags, side impact air-bags, seat air-bags... air-bags everywhere.... and seat belts, and crumple zones. All in the effort of protection. I don't even know why you ask these kind of questions when I never suggest otherwise.

Yes, cars have all those levels of protection, and still 4-5 people are dying each week. So driving helmets would be a great addition to that level of protection - right?

smash wrote: »

They're called the rules of the road, not the rules of the motorist. As such, cyclists should comply with them.

Yes, I agree - in general, they should. I break the law every day on my bike. When I hit a junction with no advance stop line or bike box, I will often move ahead of the stop line to make sure I'm visible to other traffic. This is the approach recommended by most experts in the area. Do you really want to see the Gardai ticketing every cyclist who does this?

smash wrote: »

Let's not forget the still quite large amount of motorists who never even did a test. I'd be in favour of retests every 15-20 years.

Yeah, retests sounds like a good idea to me, though maybe even more frequently than you suggest to be effective. I'd love to hear if this approach has been done anywhere else.

Liamario

smash wrote: »

Let's not forget the still quite large amount of motorists who never even did a test. I'd be in favour of retests every 15-20 years.

I agree with the concept of retests, but I question there value in reality. Clearly a licence to drive is not proof that you CAN drive in a real world scenario.

MadDog76

RainyDay wrote: »

Generally, changes to public policy require something more than opinion. Perhaps some facts, maybe some research etc.





You seem to be confusing two seperate questions:

1) Should I wear a helmet?
2) Should helmets be mandatory for everybody?

These are two very different questions. Everybody knows that smokers should give up smoking, but we don't make smoking illegal, for a range of reasons.

Even if you were to accept that wearing a helmet may have safety benefits, that doesn't make it a good idea to make it mandatory.

But we are a little off-topic here. It would be nice to get back to the question of why we're getting hysterical about cyclists breaking red lights, and how your quality of life would improve if they stopped.

Actually the topic/question is "Should cyclists do a Theory Test?" .........

MadDog76

I think discussing motorists should be banned on threads which are specifically about cyclists ......... Mods?

The threads would have a lot less posts (nonsense) as the "Lycra Legion" wouldn't have much left to say once their go-to "but look at the motorists" argument is taken away from them .........

RainyDay

MadDog76 wrote: »

Actually the topic/question is "Should cyclists do a Theory Test?" .........

So do enlighten us, how would a theory test for cyclists improve your quality of life?

MadDog76 wrote: »

I think discussing motorists should be banned on threads which are specifically about cyclists ......... Mods?

The threads would have a lot less posts (nonsense) as the "Lycra Legion" wouldn't have much left to say once their go-to "but look at the motorists" argument is taken away from them .........

Feeling the pressure eh? Looks like I'll have to come down there and explain 'opportunity cost' and 'same enforcement resources' one more time.

Boom_Bap

No, it's enevitalble that there will be a comparison point in discussion, motorists are the logical one in this type of discussion.

Grayson

MadDog76 wrote: »

I think discussing motorists should be banned on threads which are specifically about cyclists ......... Mods?

The threads would have a lot less posts (nonsense) as the "Lycra Legion" wouldn't have much left to say once their go-to "but look at the motorists" argument is taken away from them .........

If we banned motorists from the road it'd be a lot more peaceful.

MadDog76

RainyDay wrote: »

So do enlighten us, how would a theory test for cyclists improve your quality of life?



Feeling the pressure eh? Looks like I'll have to come down there and explain 'opportunity cost' and 'same enforcement resources' one more time.

Please remain on your High-Chair

MadDog76

Boom_Bap wrote: »

No, it's enevitalble that there will be a comparison point in discussion, motorists are the logical one in this type of discussion.

It also results in a going-round-in-circles discussion ........ "cyclists do x,y but never bother doing z" replied to with "but the motorists also do blah blah blah" which never really answers the question being put to cyclists about cycling specifically.

Anyway I'm just being curious as to what the replies would be if using motorists as an excuse/argument was banned .......... one can dream!

MadDog76

Grayson wrote: »

If we banned motorists from the road it'd be a lot more peaceful.

Ah you would all just turn on eachother ........ remember that no individual cyclist is ever to blame for anything he/she does on the road so if there were no motorists to blame you'd all just start pointing the finger at other cyclists. :rolleyes:

Chips Lovell

Lycra legion? You gotta get the terminology right. It's Lycra Louts

Dr Crippen

RainyDay wrote: »

Seriously? Anecdote? You're seen the problem - right? When I sit all day and pen my anecdotes which are different to your anecdotes. That's the problem with anecdotes. They are anecdotal. You might thing about looking for some evidence, or research maybe?

No im not seeing any problem, other than i answered the question you had put to me. I have formed MY opinion based on the fact i cycle and drive each and every day, i have also sat a theory test, lessons and a driving test. I see how testing has benefitted me! Is this incorrect?

Also you may not have noticed but i also asked you a question which you have neither addressed or answered, so in your own time.........

MadDog76

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Lycra legion? You gotta get the terminology right. It's Lycra Louts

"Lycra Louts" are a sub-section of the "Lycra Legion" ....... the "Lycra Legion" are all idiots but some of them (the "Louts") are also a**holes

MadDog76

Dr Crippen wrote: »

No im not seeing any problem, other than i answered the question you had put to me. I have formed MY opinion based on the fact i cycle and drive each and every day, i have also sat a theory test, lessons and a driving test. I see how testing has benefitted me! Is this incorrect?

Also you may not have noticed but i also asked you a question which you have neither addressed or answered, so in your own time.........

Let me answer your question for him, it'll save him the effort ........... 200+ motorists die on our roads every year so cyclists are great ......... hope that has addressed your question fully?

CramCycle

MadDog76 wrote: »

"Lycra Louts" are a sub-section of the "Lycra Legion" ....... the "Lycra Legion" are all idiots but some of them (the "Louts") are also a**holes

... we do not forgive, we do not forget, expect us!

MadDog76

CramCycle wrote: »

... we do not forgive, we do not forget, expect us!

......... or I could just drive over you? :cool:

roadrunner16

MadDog76 wrote: »

It also results in a going-round-in-circles discussion ........ "cyclists do x,y but never bother doing z" replied to with "but the motorists also do blah blah blah" which never really answers the question being put to cyclists about cycling specifically.

Anyway I'm just being curious as to what the replies would be if using motorists as an excuse/argument was banned .......... one can dream!

I don't think it would have that big of an impact and don't think it should be implemented for that reason , given the significant cost involved, considering many cyclists would do one when learning to drive any way.

DDC1990

I think pedestrians should have to do a theory test. I was driving through Dublin, 6 people walked across the road in front of me on a red man at one junction alone.

Not one of these people had a high viz jacket or a helmet on, they could have been killed or dented my car if I hit them.

They don't even pay road tax and they cross several roads a day.

Dr Crippen

I like where your going with that

MadDog76

roadrunner16 wrote: »

I don't think it would have that big of an impact and don't think it should be implemented for that reason , given the significant cost involved, considering many cyclists would do one when learning to drive any way.

It would be a start ........

RainyDay

Dr Crippen wrote: »

No im not seeing any problem, other than i answered the question you had put to me. I have formed MY opinion based on the fact i cycle and drive each and every day, i have also sat a theory test, lessons and a driving test. I see how testing has benefitted me! Is this incorrect?

Building public policy around the experiences of any one individual does not make for good policy. Perhaps if you attempted to explain the point of a theory test given the obvious lack of impact on large sections of the driving population, your proposal might get some traction.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Also you may not have noticed but i also asked you a question which you have neither addressed or answered, so in your own time.........

You asked a pile of questions which had all been answered earlier in the thread, which I patiently answered for you again. I don't recall your outstanding question, but I'd bet a fiver that it has already been answered. Have you bothered going through the earlier pages of the thread?

MadDog76 wrote: »

It also results in a going-round-in-circles discussion ........ "cyclists do x,y but never bother doing z" replied to with "but the motorists also do blah blah blah" which never really answers the question being put to cyclists about cycling specifically.

Anyway I'm just being curious as to what the replies would be if using motorists as an excuse/argument was banned .......... one can dream!

The funny thing is, that you've got all those answers already, but you've chosen to ignore them. Remember the answers about the proven pointlessness of the theory test, the cost benefit, the lack of clarity around benefits arising?

Volthar

Personal and 3rd party insurance for cyclists would be welcome. So far only UK companies offer such and it is quite pricey at about €80 pa. At the same time cyclist who scratches new car's side, if caught, faces few grand expenses.

Knasher

The ironic thing about all this is if a theory test for cyclists were actually introduced then it would absolutely include advice for cyclists to cycle assertively, away from car doors and the gutter, taking up a position on the road that maximises cyclist safety.

Then we would have to put up with threads in AH from motorists wondering why cyclists are taking up the whole lane.

papu

Volthar wrote: »

Personal and 3rd party insurance for cyclists would be welcome. So far only UK companies offer such and it is quite pricey at about €80 pa. At the same time cyclist who scratches new car's side, if caught, faces few grand expenses.

The only time I scratched a car door was when the driver Left Hooked me.
The only time I've knocked a wing mirror off a car was as a result of being over-taken too close. Insurance for cyclists , lol..

Anesthetize

DDC1990 wrote: »

I think pedestrians should have to do a theory test. I was driving through Dublin, 6 people walked across the road in front of me on a red man at one junction alone.

Not one of these people had a high viz jacket or a helmet on, they could have been killed or dented my car if I hit them.

They don't even pay road tax and they cross several roads a day.

Dogs should have to do theory tests too. One just walked out in front of me one day without looking where he/she was going. No high viz jacket either.

Dr Crippen

RainyDay wrote: »

Building public policy around the experiences of any one individual does not make for good policy. Perhaps if you attempted to explain the point of a theory test given the obvious lack of impact on large sections of the driving population, your proposal might get some traction.

So are you saying that the driving theory test is a waste of time?


You asked a pile of questions which had all been answered earlier in the thread, which I patiently answered for you again. I don't recall your outstanding question, but I'd bet a fiver that it has already been answered. Have you bothered going through the earlier pages of the thread?

The funny thing is, that you've got all those answers already, but you've chosen to ignore them. Remember the answers about the proven pointlessness of the theory test, the cost benefit, the lack of clarity around benefits arising?

Actually mate roll back a page to post 1067 when you are ready and you will see that i asked you

Do you drive? What is your opinion on the theory and driving test and its influence on driver behaviour?

I might have missed your reply? If so my error

pmasterson95

I used to actually respect cyclists. Then I joined boards and noticed how whiney and complainey they are. I wouldnt expected talking to a group would result in such drastic loss of respect.

roadrunner16

MadDog76 wrote: »

It would be a start ........

Not really, better places the money could be spent, road safety in schools ? driving as part of the secondary school curriculum? I can't see if having a big impact of road deaths or on injuries, if you say its a start what would be the next step ? better education for pedestrians ?

retests regularly ? or what about all the people that never did driving tests ?

MadDog76

roadrunner16 wrote: »

Not really, better places the money could be spent, road safety in schools ? driving as part of the secondary school curriculum? I can't see if having a big impact of road deaths or on injuries, if you say its a start what would be the next step ? better education for pedestrians ?

retests regularly ? or what about all the people that never did driving tests ?

That's just a diversionary answer ......... money can always be "better" spent. :rolleyes:

Hey, don't spend money on making our playgrounds safer, use the money for schools ....... No! Don't waste money on schools, use it for hospitals ........ and on and on it goes. :rolleyes:

Btw if you want to discuss the motorists that never did a Driving Test then start a thread on that topic and I'll happily discuss it with you there .......... if you want to discuss the Secondary School Curriculum then start a thread on that topic and I'll happily discuss that with you there ......... this thread is about cyclists doing the Theory Test.