Cyclists should do a theory test!

inforfun

A **** cyclist is more than likely also **** at driving a car.
And the other way around.

I dont even dare to cycle here anymore

Changing vehicle doesnt make you all of a sudden perfectly aware of the rules of the road.

kylith

moonlighting wrote: »

I would gladly do a theory test or even pay a small tax if they implemented proper cycle lanes across the country, but that's never going to happen. I know there are some cycle lanes in city centers but there a mess and there's practically none in the county side. Cycling is great exercise and great for the environment but without the infrastructure its just dangerous.
I could be crazy here but i think the future is in cycling not electric cars.

Many cycle lanes are just taken from lanes on the road so it is impossible for cars to not be in the cycle lane. Many Irish roads are too narrow for cycle lanes and cars to be properly separated and even when the road is wide enough you have to deal with things like the left-turning lane for cars going over the straight-ahead lane for bikes, which is downright dangerous, imo. Cycle paths on footpaths often go over driveways and are used as footpath extensions by pedestrians. Cycle paths on footpaths are, imo, both frustrating and dangerous for all because you have to constantly expect a pedestrian to step in front of you so it's impossible to get up any kind of speed. I definitely agree that it would be a step in the right direction to move toward totally removing cars from city centres via better bike lanes, better public transport links, and cheaper/free parking on the outskirts.

RainyDay

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In Dublin city centre it's the exact opposite. Cars rarely do blatantly dangerous rule breaking but most cyclists act as if pedestrian lights don't exist at all and footpaths are just part of the road. Particularly around the quays.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Bwaahaahaa. You need to get real.
Have a look at these vids;
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92964191&postcount=597

And this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc5VGuJvOVk

And this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWC8sT06Zi0

Would you like me to keep going, or do you get the point that just about every time a light goes red in Dublin, 1 or 2 or 3 drivers break the red light.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why should someone who's 7 years old be allowed to cycle on the roads, when they're legitimately too young to drive? There's a reason we have age limits for things like that.

Do you often see 7 year olds driving on the roads?

And if you think that 18 is a good age limit for cycling, be prepared to get rush hour traffic to increase as the remaining (mostly boy) students who do cycle to school get back into Mammy's car.

Chloris wrote: »

What are you on about. We're talking about cyclists using the road in a dangerous way. Obviously anyone who kills anyone should serve time in prison. Nobody is contending that.

I'm talking about victim-blaming - that anyone who takes a child out on the road is somehow negligent. We've seen calls on this thread for extra training, and now you want those parents who do take their kids out on the road to prepare them for independent travel reported to social services? See the problem yet?

Clearlier wrote: »

I continue to be surprised at the level of vitriol directed towards cyclists.

This is a very interesting question. The vitriol towards cyclists in verging on racist in nature. Small minded people see fault only in cyclists, and don't see the many faults in drivers (despite the fact that the road safety stats show clearly which road user group is a danger to others).

So why the vitriol - simple jealously at seeing cyclists breeze past in traffic while they are stuck in the queue?

Grandpa Hassan

Nice one RainyDay. Just shows how blind drivers are to the danger that they pose. The behaviour is so prevalent now that it is just accepted as the norm. I think that's why they don't see it. And professional drivers are the worst....taxis and buses

roadrunner16

tipparetops wrote: »

They should have a licence, insurance and tax. If they want to use the roads, they should pay for them.
And those pricks who get dressed up at the weekend, they are suffering a mid life crisis. Oddballs.

Assuming you're a driver ? how do you pay for the roads more than cyclists ?

Clearlier

RainyDay wrote: »

This is a very interesting question. The vitriol towards cyclists in verging on racist in nature. Small minded people see fault only in cyclists, and don't see the many faults in drivers (despite the fact that the road safety stats show clearly which road user group is a danger to others).

So why the vitriol - simple jealously at seeing cyclists breeze past in traffic while they are stuck in the queue?

I think that it's more likely to do with personal experience. As I hinted at in my earlier post when I cycle I see drivers do dumb things on pretty much every journey I make but I rarely see cyclists do anything wrong. When I drive I see cyclists doing dumb thing all over the place but rarely see cars do much wrong.

The above is because when I cycle I move at a similar speed to most cyclists so I don't encounter very many and when I drive I move at the speed of the traffic around me so I only see the behaviour of a few drivers. I doubt that my experience is unique hence why so many drivers think that most cyclists are bad and many cyclists think that most drivers are bad.

Edit to add that most (adult) cyclists are drivers and have some appreciation of the stupid things that cyclists do but most driver are not cyclists and have a limited appreciation of the dumb things that drivers do.

Capt'n Midnight

dubscottie wrote: »

There is a video on the cycling forum of cars "breaking lights". In that video, Had the cars stopped, There would have been a pile up behind them.

You can go through a amber turning to red light if it would be unsafe to stop.. Ie slamming on the anchors.

Cyclists do it day in day out.. €100 a pop and a Garda would collect €20,000+ in fines in an hour at the junction of Harolds Cross Rd/Rathgar Ave.

LOL we could have saved hundreds of millions on NRA three lane upgrades if we prosecuted motorists who refuse to move in to empty lanes to their left.

Look at any of the RSA free speed surveys. at one stage 99% of motorists in free flowing traffic in interurban 50Km/h zones broke the speed limit. Average speed cameras would pay for themselves in no time.

RDM_83 again

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

I agree. City planning will become cycle focussed. Dublin will eventually follow London in taking away entire lanes and devoting them 100% to cycles (works on the Embankment in London are underway and even taxi drivers have capitulated in their opposition to it)

Drivers here are all just raging against the dying of the light

I really don't think London is a place to emulate in terms of cycling, did a lot of cycling around Dublin currently cycling around London, there is probably a higher number of cyclists here but the experience is considerably worse, maybe the new big lanes they are building will be better but the lanes they make a big deal about now are pretty poor in many parts and there is really few of them, add to that you also have the added phenomenon here of cyclists that are aggressive to other cyclists and they allow artics during the day.
The reason the opposition is low to the lanes is because there is so many deaths,cycle past at least two ghost bikes a day and this week 2 people died.

anncoates

mikemac1 wrote: »

Since tax is based on emissions the correct rate is zero

What about righteous emissions? The exchequer could make millions of euro from cyclists.

PeadarCo

anncoates wrote: »

What about righteous emissions? The exchequer could make millions of euro from cyclists.

So your asking for a poll tax. We've about 4.5 million odd in the country and pretty much everyone will make a "righteous" statement and some point during the year, whether its Cyclists/Drivers/Pedestrians/Fianna Fail/Fianna Gael/Sinn Fein/Denis O Brian/Man United/Liverpool/etc are the Devil incarnate/Hitler/criminal/God/perfect/ etc. Sounds a very easy way to raise money.

keith16

I am cyclist and I did a theory test.

222233

I was recently driving through a busy area at peak traffic time, one of the lanes allows for a continuous amber (yield and go if clear etc). I was coming off of my turn, I had a green light and a cyclist literally went straight through the amber light meaning I was inches from knocking him off his bike, he then preceded to make some angry, strange hand movements... I have also noticed cyclists running red lights, veering in and out of cars and leaning on cars. NOTHING MAKES ME MORE ANGRY.

Cyclists should have to sit a driving test, forget a theory test and they should be prosecuted with fines/penalty points for breaking the rules of the road.

endacl

222233 wrote: »

I was recently driving through a busy area at peak traffic time, one of the lanes allows for a continuous amber (yield and go if clear etc). I was coming off of my turn, I had a green light and a cyclist literally went straight through the amber light meaning I was inches from knocking him off his bike, he then preceded to make some angry, strange hand movements... I have also noticed cyclists running red lights, veering in and out of cars and leaning on cars. NOTHING MAKES ME MORE ANGRY.

Cyclists should have to sit a driving test, forget a theory test and they should be prosecuted with fines/penalty points for breaking the rules of the road.

:mad: Yeah. Grrrr! Cyclists are all bad! :mad:

On the other hand, the points you raise have already been addressed. In this and many other threads...

222233

endacl wrote: »

:mad: Yeah. Grrrr! Cyclists are all bad! :mad:

On the other hand, the points you raise have already been addressed. In this and many other threads...

Sorry if I am repeating but it infuriates me that if I knock someone down for their own stupidity I will be prosecutable and have to live with that guilt.

mikemac1

222233 wrote: »

Cyclists should have to sit a driving test, forget a theory test and they should be prosecuted with fines/penalty points for breaking the rules of the road.

I'm a cyclist and have passed a car test and a motorcycle test.

Now I need to do a test for cycling? Sure I was cycling when I was 8 years

222233

mikemac1 wrote: »

I'm a cyclist and have passed a car test and a motorcycle test.

Now I need to do a test for cycling? Sure I was cycling when I was 8 years

If you obey the rules of the road, then Im sure you are fine as you can drive you are probably aware of how to use public roads I would assume

IrishHomer

What about pedestrians?

Every pedestrian in Midlands walks on the wrong side of the road, won't use pedestrian crossings, but will walk out in front of traffic and expect right of way!

anncoates

PeadarCo wrote: »

So your asking for a poll tax. We've about 4.5 million odd in the country and pretty much everyone will make a "righteous" statement and some point during the year, whether its Cyclists/Drivers/Pedestrians/Fianna Fail/Fianna Gael/Sinn Fein/Denis O Brian/Man United/Liverpool/etc are the Devil incarnate/Hitler/criminal/God/perfect/ etc. Sounds a very easy way to raise money.

That's a lot of effort, to be fair.

Just say what about car drivers dur dur durrr etc.

Matt_Trakker

Can we not just have a system where cyclists and drivers have to take theory tests?
Cyclists wouldn't need a cycling test, but then every 5 years or so everyone would have to take a refresher course of some kind.
Be a bit of a money spinner too for the gubberment.

Just doing a test once always seemed a bit pointless to me, like do any of you remember your algebra theories from your Leaving Cert? Or the definition of The Law of Diminishing Returns?

Continuous assessment is the way to go.
Plus it'll be a handy way to legally get all those old people off the roads....unless they pass of course....it's mad, like, people who passed their exams in the 40s/50s can still drive based on an exam they did 60 or 70 odd years ago. That's just wrong.

mikemac1

Zipping up bus lanes
Blaring noise
Bullying others drivers
Flying through red lights
Stopping and parking wherever they like

Those feckin HSE ambulances :mad:

222233

Seeing as we provide cycle lanes, why aren't cyclists using these lanes paying taxes for the money it cost to make them, I'm not allowed drive in them?

beauf

lickme wrote: »

A lot of cyclists have no concept of the rules of the road...Should be made do some sort of simulation test or something...

83% of UK cyclists hold driving licences...

"Cyclist" for this purpose is someone who cycled at least once during the week in which they were asked to fill in a travel diary for the NTS.

I think you'd need to work out do people not know the rules. Or are they choosing to ignore them. How many already have a driving license.

mikemac1

222233 wrote: »

Seeing as we provide cycle lanes, why aren't cyclists using these lanes paying taxes for the money it cost to make them, I'm not allowed drive in them?

Motor tax doesn't pay for roads. It comes from central funds. The kid paying vat on a can on coke pays for roads same as you.

And if you believe you pay more because you have a tax disc on your windscreen well that money is paying for Irish Water these days

Brussels Sprout

I'm both a cyclist and a motorist and my #1 pet peeve on the roads is people breaking red lights. The only difference seems to be that some cyclists cycle through red lights at any time as opposed to some motorists who drive through them in the second or two after they have just switched to red. But yeah I'd love to see more people being pulled up on this as it's both selfish and dangerous.

222233

mikemac1 wrote: »

Motor tax doesn't pay for roads. It comes from central funds. The kid paying vat on a can on coke pays for roads same as you.

And if you believe you pay more because you have a tax disc on your windscreen well that money is paying for Irish Water these days

But I don't mind paying for my water I have always had to pay for my water! i pay massive tax at work and car tax so irrespective of whether its paying for cycle lanes or not it should be coming out of a specific paid by cyclist tax fund.

machiavellianme

222233 wrote: »

But I don't mind paying for my water I have always had to pay for my water! i pay massive tax at work and car tax so irrespective of whether its paying for cycle lanes or not it should be coming out of a specific paid by cyclist tax fund.

I like your view of the world.
Maybe we should pay the Dole by a specific paid into by those on the Dole fund, and if it runs out, then so be it. Perhaps Childrens allowance could come out of a fund raised by making children work? Creative thinking like this will set the Celtic Phoenix ablaze.

I dont have children so why should my taxes pay for schools? I've never been in a hospital, so again, I don't think I should pay for that or nurses or doctors. Also, I've never had any dealings with the law, I dont need to fund the Gardai's salaries either. In fact, what does my taxes go on? If it's not completely dedicated to cycle lanes and the bike to work scheme, then I'll be mightily angry!

rubadub

222233 wrote: »

Seeing as we provide cycle lanes, why aren't cyclists using these lanes paying taxes for the money it cost to make them, I'm not allowed drive in them?

This is why the bike to work scheme was a complete waste of time, seeing as no cyclist pays tax there was nothing to claim back. How they came up with the idea I never know...

I see plenty of cars using cycletracks & cycleways, and pedestrians, they are teeming with them. Its quite common to see pedestrians walking onto cycletracks, some of them do it to give way to the cyclist on the footpath who is avoiding the group of pedestrians on the cycletrack often the majority.

IrishHomer wrote: »

What about pedestrians?

They get off scot free, as the whingers see them as being "one of us".

So the pent up bigot cunts who in previous times may have been openly racist, sexist, homophobic have found one of the few groups they feel they can openly vent about, without feeling shame. Laughable when you think the majority of them cycled at some time in their life, and probably have some friends and family that cycle -and instruct their children to illegally cycle on the path.

Why I hate pedestrians

You know what I hate? Pedestrians. That self-satisfied, striding, boot-bedecked bunch of scum. Is it just me, or does the country suddenly seem to be full of them? I've never tried walking anywhere myself -- why would I? I'm a successful adult -- but it seems I can hardly travel down the street these days without one of them stepping off the pavement in front of me without looking, their face set in a holier-than-thou expression as they jump out of the way of my car in a burst of expletives. Something clearly needs to be done, and it's good that the government are starting to realise this.

The thing is, it's not just that pedestrians are all smug and annoying when they bang on about "health" and "pollution". That's sickening enough, but if their smugness was the only problem I could just ignore them - after all, they and their silly 'shoes' flash past quick enough when I get going, and their smugness can't penetrate my car's tinted windows. But the thing is there's more to it than that, because have you noticed that even though pedestrians walk millions of miles on our road system every single day, they contribute nothing at all to the cost of that road system? They have thousands and thousands of miles of dedicated pedestrian-only travel routes -- pavements, they're called, or sidewalks if you're that way inclined -- which they don't pay a penny for! Whilst honest motorists are taxed left, right and centre, they don't pay anything at all for all these facilities they enjoy. It beggars belief.

And recently, of course, it's got worse. As I'm driving up the street I constantly come across pedestrians walking across my part of the road to get from one of these pavements to another. I mean, what the hell...? Do they want the shirt off my back as well? They've been given vast tracts of pedestrian-only routes, where I'm certainly not allowed to drive, but apparently this isn't enough for them. Oh no, they want to keep encroaching into my space as well. Sure, we've all heard these walking zealots who say that it's because the 'pavements' don't form a joined-up network, meaning they can't walk to where they want to go without having to step onto the road from time to time. Aw, bless their little hearts. To pedestrians I say this: get off my part of the road. If you walk there when I'm coming along then I'll happily run you down, that's all.

In the long term there's clearly only one solution to all this. If pedestrians want to walk on our streets, which we pay for with all our driving taxes, then they need to pay their share and take their part of the responsibility. Anybody who walks anywhere should undergo training, should have to pay an annual tax towards the facilities they enjoy, should display a license plate so they can be identified, and should each be made to carry insurance in case they are ever involved in any accidents. Until then, they can sod off back to Shoeville or wherever it is they go when they aren't freeloading off the rest of us.

RainyDay

222233 wrote: »

Seeing as we provide cycle lanes, why aren't cyclists using these lanes paying taxes for the money it cost to make them, I'm not allowed drive in them?

Seeing as we provide motorways, why aren't motorists using these motorways instead of the roads around them? I'm paying taxes for the money it costs to make them motorways, and I'm not allowed to cycle in them?

See how dumb it sounds now? For the record, there are a variety of reasons why cyclists choose not to use cycle lanes. It could be because the cycle lane is frequently covered in broken glass, or (between October - December) mushy leaves, or because it is frequently used by pedestrians, sometimes with (my own personal favourite) the extendable dog lead stretched invisibly across the dog lane like the old Nazi piano wire trap. Or it could be because like the older stretches of the N11 cycle lane, they are built with a dished exit from every housing leading to a rollercoaster up/down effect. Or it could be because the design of the cycle lane leads them into dangerous positions at junctions, as cars don't expect have cyclists exiting from what is effectively the path - take your pick there.

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I'm both a cyclist and a motorist and my #1 pet peeve on the roads is people breaking red lights. The only difference seems to be that some cyclists cycle through red lights at any time as opposed to some motorists who drive through them in the second or two after they have just switched to red. But yeah I'd love to see more people being pulled up on this as it's both selfish and dangerous.

Second or two? I'd go with 'second or ten' maybe, but either way, it is a big dangerous and annoying, I agree with you. But why focus on this one particular bit of law-breaking? Why not keep on eye on the large number of motorists and small number of cyclists who will use a phone while driving?

222233 wrote: »

But I don't mind paying for my water I have always had to pay for my water! i pay massive tax at work and car tax so irrespective of whether its paying for cycle lanes or not it should be coming out of a specific paid by cyclist tax fund.

We all pay the same tax at work, and we all pay considerable VAT on our spending (including bike purchase, bike repairs and bike accessories), but really - a specific 'cyclist tax fund'? Are we going to have a specific 'sick with cancer' fund to pay for cancer treatments? And a specific 'pedestrian' fund to pay for paths? Come one now...

Clearlier wrote: »

I think that it's more likely to do with personal experience. As I hinted at in my earlier post when I cycle I see drivers do dumb things on pretty much every journey I make but I rarely see cyclists do anything wrong. When I drive I see cyclists doing dumb thing all over the place but rarely see cars do much wrong.

The above is because when I cycle I move at a similar speed to most cyclists so I don't encounter very many and when I drive I move at the speed of the traffic around me so I only see the behaviour of a few drivers. I doubt that my experience is unique hence why so many drivers think that most cyclists are bad and many cyclists think that most drivers are bad.

Edit to add that most (adult) cyclists are drivers and have some appreciation of the stupid things that cyclists do but most driver are not cyclists and have a limited appreciation of the dumb things that drivers do.

I'm not sure I get the 'similar speed' thing, given the ability of many motorists to spot law-breaking cyclists while being largely blind to law-breaking motorists. Maybe it is more to do with your last point, that most drivers are not cyclists, and feel it is OK to attack another group of people, simply because they choose a different mode of transport on a particular day?

anncoates wrote: »

What about righteous emissions? The exchequer could make millions of euro from cyclists.

Brilliant idea - would this apply to the OP and all the other anti-cycling nonsense in this thread too?

222233 wrote: »

I was recently driving through a busy area at peak traffic time, one of the lanes allows for a continuous amber (yield and go if clear etc). I was coming off of my turn, I had a green light and a cyclist literally went straight through the amber light meaning I was inches from knocking him off his bike, he then preceded to make some angry, strange hand movements... I have also noticed cyclists running red lights, veering in and out of cars and leaning on cars. NOTHING MAKES ME MORE ANGRY.

So let me understand your logic here - one cyclist did something bad or dangerous, so you are convinced that ALL other cyclists need to be punished? And everytime I see a driver doing something bad and dangerous, are you going to come up with a new licensing/testing/insurance system, given that it clearly points to the current system being failed?

222233 wrote: »

Cyclists should have to sit a driving test, forget a theory test and they should be prosecuted with fines/penalty points for breaking the rules of the road.

Do tell - how's that theory test, driving test, fines and penalty point system working out with motorists, given that they kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others?

222233 wrote: »

Sorry if I am repeating but it infuriates me that if I knock someone down for their own stupidity I will be prosecutable and have to live with that guilt.

Has there been any one case where a driver has been prosecuted for an injury caused by a cyclist's own stupidity?

222233

I still stand to my point if I am answerable in court or can be issued with penalty points as a driver, then so should cyclists, they too need to able to be punished and definitely need insurance !!

Jawgap

222233 wrote: »

I still stand to my point if I am answerable in court or can be issued with penalty points as a driver, then so should cyclists, they too need to able to be punished and definitely need insurance !!

Yeah, not needed and not going to happen.....