Cyclists should do a theory test!

RainyDay

Dr Crippen wrote: »

No but it could save some lives, is that worth anything?

So would wrapping everyone in bubble wrap - an equally ludicrous proposal. If you want a proposal to be taken seriously, come up with a decent cost/benefit analysis.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Unfortunately I am not pretending, when you have dependents in the car with you, I become more attentive and aware and adhere to the rules of the road.

Strangely enough, you're not the only person in Ireland to have dependents in the car with you. Most people are familiar with that scenario. But keep up the pretence if you like. You might be managing to kid yourself, but you're not kidding me.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

But you, complain about drivers breaking lights, record it even! and then have the nerve to admit to driving over the speed limit and try to justify it?

You seem to be labouring under a misapprehension that I need to justify anything to you. I don't.

Jawgap wrote: »

What evidence is there that it will save lives?

If anything it will cost lives, because it will dissuade people from cycling by introducing a barrier - cycling is a useful activity easily incorporated into lifestyles. It helps promote a degree of fitness, is largely unpolluting and is quite low in terms of environmental impact.

If someone is put off cycling because of a test - or other 'barrier' - or because something communicates an idea that cycling is less safe than it actually is, and that person drives more than they otherwise would - is that a positive move?

And even if the idea of test was a good idea was a good one, in principle - how would you enforce it? Would an hour of Garda time be better spent checking cyclists to see if they have their test done or carrying out speed checks?

All that an more. There is also the opportunity cost arising from the missed opportunity to focus policy makers and legislators on dealing with the death toll on the road caused by motorists.

Jawgap

Dr Crippen wrote: »

What evidence is there that it will save lives?

If anything it will cost lives, because it will dissuade people from cycling by introducing a barrier - cycling is a useful activity easily incorporated into lifestyles. It helps promote a degree of fitness, is largely unpolluting and is quite low in terms of environmental impact.

So again, by your statement can you answer me the following:

1. If you believe a theory test will not save lives and it will cost lives, why is there a driver theory test and do you feel this is useless.

2. Have you any evidence that a bicycle theory test will cost lives and could you explain to me how this would occur?

It's an artifact - a barrier to help people psychologically 'value' the licence. In that regard it's useful for drivers because of the damage a tonne of metal can cause in someone's hands.

Barriers to cycling decrease participation in cycling - that's bad because, unlike driving, the externalities (pollution, accidents, time lost, etc) associated with cycling are minimal (therefore fewer people driving and fewer cars on the road would be better).

More cycling may well lead to a small measurable increase in acute hospital attendances and admissions, but the population health outcomes would be significantly improved - plus reducing things like CHD and diabetes secures significant health savings because such lifestyle driven conditions are chronic and expensive to treat.

BTW, the thing I never understood about my fellow motorists is why they are not the leading proponents of cycling - look around you driving home this evening - if even 1 in 10 of those single occupant cars switched to a bike, how much more space would their be on the roads

Dr Crippen

RainyDay wrote: »

So would wrapping everyone in bubble wrap - an equally ludicrous proposal. If you want a proposal to be taken seriously, come up with a decent cost/benefit analysis.


Strangely enough, you're not the only person in Ireland to have dependents in the car with you. Most people are familiar with that scenario. But keep up the pretense if you like. You might be managing to kid yourself, but you're not kidding me.

You seem to be labouring under a misapprehension that I need to justify anything to you. I don't.


All that an more. There is also the opportunity cost arising from the missed opportunity to focus policy makers and legislators on dealing with the death toll on the road caused by motorists.

You are behaving a little childish now I cant see bubble wrap helping anyone, in fact it would probably get caught up in the bicycle spokes, so an opposite effect.

What I see everyday is bad motorists and bad cyclists. The point made before was that motorist must complete a series of test, cyclists do not and I would like to see something introduced to reduce the possibility of cyclists having accidents or becoming embroiled in incidents with motorists, that's all and some sort of awareness campaign or theory course IN MY OPINION, might help.

You on the other hand have recommended nothing on the basis of motorist cause more accidents, how does that help?


You have mentioned twice I am pretending, children pretend when they are playing together or when imagining fun games, I don't, I understand you could be becoming a little frustrated but its not the way to get your point across, Again I will state I drive within the legal limits on the road as I don't want penalty points, a fine or to kill the people in the car with me.

Lastly I don't want you to justify anything, I never even mentioned it but I don't have the patience to debate with hypocrites, which I am afraid you might be?

pmasterson95

Just ended up clicking into cyclist thread by accident. They are bitching about a french rule banning earphones? By god do cyclists ever not whine? They are either whining about motorists, whining about the rules of the road (why do we have to if motorists dont?) or whining about pedestrians. By god it must be awful depressing complaining that much

Knasher

pmasterson95 wrote: »

By god it must be awful depressing complaining that much

I don't think I've ever seen a motorist vs cyclist thread created in AH by a cyclist, but I've seen three created from the motorists perspective in the last month.

pmasterson95

Knasher wrote: »

I don't think I've ever seen a motorist vs cyclist thread created in AH by a cyclist, but I've seen three created from the motorists perspective in the last month.

Well thats due to the cyclists ignorance and feeling that all rules and events seem to conspire against them and their method of transport. And as was illustrated a while ago a motorist thread in the cycling area was actually locked and forced to AH as it wasn't pro cyclist to be allowed in that forum.

jimgoose

The theory test forces people to at least have some familiarity with the RotR. The driving test examines basic competency in operating the machine, as well as observation, hazard perception/reaction, etc. It's not that complicated, and not that comprehensive. That's the way with these things, that virtually everybody has to do. If anyone feels like doing an advanced test, which lasts over an hour and is marked using a chainsaw, be my guest - motorist, pedalling-bicyclist or pedestrian - but know that if I had my way it would be preceded by something like the Navy SEAL Hell Week, during which sense would be fcukan BATE into prospects!

Knasher

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Well thats due to the cyclists ignorance and feeling that all rules and events seem to conspire against them and their method of transport.

It doesn't change the fact that these threads are almost always started by people wanting to have a go at cyclists. When the OP actually has a valid complaint, like the guy who was hit crossing a bridge, I can't remember a single cyclist defending his actions. But even then these threads very quickly devolve into the motorists having a bit of a moan about the cyclists.

All I ask for is a bit of respect when we share the road, but as the ever reoccurring thread on "road tax" demonstrates, even that is a stretch for some people.

Hell the premise of the other recent thread on cyclists was on licensing. Literally asking for a government body to be set up so that motorists could whine about cyclists to it, and yet cyclists are the whiny ones?

Jawgap

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Just ended up clicking into cyclist thread by accident. They are bitching about a french rule banning earphones? By god do cyclists ever not whine? They are either whining about motorists, whining about the rules of the road (why do we have to if motorists dont?) or whining about pedestrians. By god it must be awful depressing complaining that much

Wonder why you didn't check out the thread supporting the introduction of FPNs......


........but of course that doesn't fit in to your narrative

lickme

I love the opinions on my thread! :pac:

StinkyMunkey

To keep everyone happy, why not once a year take a concept like the one in the film "The Purge" and apply it to cyclists. Think of it as an annual cull on cyclists, it will keep their numbers down. The only issue is the repairs on your car after could be quiet exspensive.

RainyDay

Dr Crippen wrote: »

You are behaving a little childish now I cant see bubble wrap helping anyone, in fact it would probably get caught up in the bicycle spokes, so an opposite effect.

Yes, the bubble wrap is a remarkably silly idea - but not that far off your idea of a theory test that has already been proven to be ineffective.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

What I see everyday is bad motorists and bad cyclists. The point made before was that motorist must complete a series of test, cyclists do not and I would like to see something introduced to reduce the possibility of cyclists having accidents or becoming embroiled in incidents with motorists, that's all and some sort of awareness campaign or theory course IN MY OPINION, might help.

So you have bad motorists, who have completed their test and license. And your proposal to 'fix' cyclists is to introduce another test/license system, though the first one is not achieving the objective you want to achieve. Really, this will about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

You on the other hand have recommended nothing on the basis of motorist cause more accidents, how does that help?

That's untrue. I haven't recommended 'nothing'. I have recommended that a theory test for cyclists would be completely ineffective, expensive and a dangerous distraction from the death toll on the roads.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

You have mentioned twice I am pretending, children pretend when they are playing together or when imagining fun games, I don't, I understand you could be becoming a little frustrated but its not the way to get your point across, Again I will state I drive within the legal limits on the road as I don't want penalty points, a fine or to kill the people in the car with me.

Your advice on 'how to get my point across' is not needed thanks. Please don't patronise me. I don't need advice on 'how to get my point across' from someone whose main debating technique is 'repeat my opinion, again and again'.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Lastly I don't want you to justify anything, I never even mentioned it but I don't have the patience to debate with hypocrites, which I am afraid you might be?

I guess it might have come from where you said "then have the nerve to admit to driving over the speed limit and try to justify it" that I felt you were expecting me to justify something.

As for your patience, you seem to have endless patience for repeating your 'opinion' without giving any justification or rationale or fact or evidence.

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Just ended up clicking into cyclist thread by accident. They are bitching about a french rule banning earphones? By god do cyclists ever not whine? They are either whining about motorists, whining about the rules of the road (why do we have to if motorists dont?) or whining about pedestrians. By god it must be awful depressing complaining that much

So you dropped by to whine/bitch/complain?

jimgoose wrote: »

The theory test forces people to at least have some familiarity with the RotR. The driving test examines basic competency in operating the machine, as well as observation, hazard perception/reaction, etc. It's not that complicated, and not that comprehensive. That's the way with these things, that virtually everybody has to do. If anyone feels like doing an advanced test, which lasts over an hour and is marked using a chainsaw, be my guest - motorist, pedalling-bicyclist or pedestrian - but know that if I had my way it would be preceded by something like the Navy SEAL Hell Week, during which sense would be fcukan BATE into prospects!

You can do your SEAL Hell Week and all if you like. Then you will send your cyclist out into the real world, where (just like the motorists after their driving test) they will do pretty much whatever you like.

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

To keep everyone happy, why not once a year take a concept like the one in the film "The Purge" and apply it to cyclists. Think of it as an annual cull on cyclists, it will keep their numbers down. The only issue is the repairs on your car after could be quiet exspensive.

Isn't it interesting that if you wrote that about black people or gay people or jewish people, you could be convicted of incitement to hatred. But you think it's OK to suggest killing people based on their choice of a mode of transport. Classy guy.

Dr Crippen

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, the bubble wrap is a remarkably silly idea - but not that far off your idea of a theory test that has already been proven to be ineffective.




So you have bad motorists, who have completed their test and license. And your proposal to 'fix' cyclists is to introduce another test/license system, though the first one is not achieving the objective you want to achieve. Really, this will about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

Whats your recommendation then?



That's untrue. I haven't recommended 'nothing'. I have recommended that a theory test for cyclists would be completely ineffective, expensive and a dangerous distraction from the death toll on the roads.

Thats not recommending any idea, its purely negating the debate?

Your advice on 'how to get my point across' is not needed thanks. Please don't patronise me. I don't need advice on 'how to get my point across' from someone whose main debating technique is 'repeat my opinion, again and again'.

Not at all, read through the posts with Jawgap we are developing ideas such as introducing something into the school curriculum, you have produce nothing positive or suggested anything. You have only delved into childish posts bordering on name calling.


I guess it might have come from where you said "then have the nerve to admit to driving over the speed limit and try to justify it" that I felt you were expecting me to justify something.

No I wasn't you misinterpreted that, I was purely pointing out your hypocrisy

As for your patience, you seem to have endless patience for repeating your 'opinion' without giving any justification or rationale or fact or evidence.

Unfortunately you have undermined yourself and your points by being a hypocrite. One the one hand you don't see the value in trying to introduce a system to educate, help and advise cyclists or future cyclists.You say its ineffective and costly. You consistently bring up the figure of 200 plus motorists etc etc and yet you by your own admission break the speed limit, have a think about that.

RainyDay

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Whats your recommendation then?

My recommendation has been fairly clear from the start of this thread, but if you really need it, I'll repeat it.

1) Prioritise our attention on road safety issues based on risk - 200 people are killed each year by motorists, so our priority should be on reducing that dramatically.
2) In terms of cyclists breaking lights or other minor transgressions, we should do nothing until we have a clear understanding of what problem we are trying to solve and what benefit will arise.

Let's just say I have a magic wand and I stop all cyclists breaking red lights from today. How will that improve quality of life for you or me?

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Not at all, read through the posts with Jawgap we are developing ideas such as introducing something into the school curriculum, you have produce nothing positive or suggested anything. You have only delved into childish posts bordering on name calling.

Developing ideas? Don't kid yourself. Cycle safety programmes have been run in schools for years now, and got extra funding last year. You're not developing anything - you're waffling about stuff you know little about.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Unfortunately you have undermined yourself and your points by being a hypocrite. One the one hand you don't see the value in trying to introduce a system to educate, help and advise cyclists or future cyclists.You say its ineffective and costly. You consistently bring up the figure of 200 plus motorists etc etc and yet you by your own admission break the speed limit, have a think about that.

It's a pity that you still fail to understand dangerous driving and what causes deaths on the road. I'm not going to try and educate you any more, as you seem to be fairly impervious to facts.

Dr Crippen

RainyDay wrote: »

My recommendation has been fairly clear from the start of this thread, but if you really need it, I'll repeat it.

1) Prioritise our attention on road safety issues based on risk - 200 people are killed each year by motorists, so our priority should be on reducing that dramatically.

Again this should include cyclists, as they are road users also. Give some examples what you would prioritise because you don't really address or outline anything in that point

2) In terms of cyclists breaking lights or other minor transgressions, we should do nothing until we have a clear understanding of what problem we are trying to solve and what benefit will arise.

Wow, other minor transgressions? like not indicating when turning, changing lanes without signalling, breaking red lights the kind of thing motorists do? Lets discuss the problems we are trying to solve, instead of mud slinging, accusing people of being dramatic or how did you put it 'ludicrous'

It will mean that cyclists as road users are complying with the rules of the road and to try and ensure a greater level of safety for them, surely that's the goal? Or are you happy with them continuing to do this?



Developing ideas? Don't kid yourself. Cycle safety programmes have been run in schools for years now, and got extra funding last year. You're not developing anything - you're waffling about stuff you know little about.

Ha really, I mentioned including something in the curriculum as part of a short course or Module this would be relevant to schools. I am a teacher and never have I ever seen this done in school and the school has to incorporate this themselves and apply for funding, its not part of the curriculum or even promoted by the department of education.


It's a pity that you still fail to understand dangerous driving and what causes deaths on the road. I'm not going to try and educate you any more, as you seem to be fairly impervious to facts.

No thanks, I know what dangerous driving is there are many factors such as road condition, driver performance and not driving within the speed limit and you going over the speed limit are part of that culture. So you by speeding, and then criticizing other road users are a hypocrite.

Moving the goalpost, by saying "what if you go 1 mile an hour over the limit" or watching other cars pass you by, does not in any way make that right.

Therefore, you are a hypocrite and I recommend not educating anyone in the skill of hypocrisy, its as simple as that. If you are concerned about deaths on the road, stay within the limit and for gods sake practice what you preach!

"Hypocracy of all kinds grinds my gears, regardless of the source" (Your words)


Originally Posted by Casey78
I bet you never break red lights....
I bet you never break the speed limit in your car... (again your retort)


All through this I have stated I am a cyclist and a motorist. I have been unbiased in my assessment of both sets of road users, stating in a previous post that daily I see good and bad road users.

I don't like saying this but you seem to be coming from a totally pro cyclist point of view. Using language like:

'In terms of cyclists breaking lights or other minor transgressions, we should do nothing until we have a clear understanding of what problemwe are trying to solve and what benefit will arise'

I am still laughing at this comment to be fair, it beggars belief, am I wrong in saying you posted a video of motorists breaking lights, why not balance that up with cyclists doing the same, just for an unbiased perspective


Bwaahaahaa - don't make me post the videos again, the ones showing drivers ignoring red lights, (your post)

check_six

RainyDay wrote: »

That's untrue. I haven't recommended 'nothing'. I have recommended that a theory test for cyclists would be completely ineffective, expensive and a dangerous distraction from the death toll on the roads.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Thats not recommending any idea, its purely negating the debate?

I'd suggest that the question is whether a theory test should be brought in for cyclists or not. Arguing for "not" is not negating the debate, it is the essence of debating.

When determining if bringing in a theory test is worthwhile you must weigh up the positives and the negatives. Look at it from both points of view and look at any consequences.

You have to examine the problem you are trying to solve. Is the theory test the solution to fix that issue?

Could some other route have the effect you are looking for?

From what I have read here the plan is that a theory test would aim to stop cyclists doing anything contrary to the Rules of the Road. The general gist is that it couldn't do any harm, could it?

Well, yes, it could do some harm. This is slightly counter-intuitive so I can see why people are struggling to get their heads around it. Putting a barrier to cycling reduces the numbers cycling. (This barrier could be significant enough to stop all children cycling at all). Reduction in numbers means an increase in danger for remaining cyclists as other vehicles don't expect them to be on the roads. Reduction in numbers cycling also has the effect of an increasingly unhealthy population not getting enough exercise and putting pressure on health services. Motor vehicle congestion will increase as well with cyclists switching over to their cars for transport.

So if you have this barrier of the theory test lots of things happen, but the one thing you want to happen, more law-abiding cyclists, doesn't naturally follow.

A simple solution for more law-abiding cyclists is to bring in Fixed Penalty Notices and have a bit of visible enforcement of them. This does not become a barrier for a kid wanting to hop on a bike. It doesn't become a barrier for someone digging an old bike out of the shed to cycle to work on a sunny day. It doesn't reduce cycling numbers, and it doesn't encourage people to jump in the car. There are plans in place to introduce FPNs in the next few months (same plans have been rolling around for years now, however!).

Everything in this post has been mentioned a number of times already in this thread, by the way, but the debate still trundles on.

Tony EH

And what will FPN's really achieve at the end of the day? I don't think that will solve bad cycling either TBH, just as a theory test won't do anything either (except cost money for the cyclist).

As I've said earlier in the thread, the number of actual accidents involving cyclists are very small, especially when compared to motor vehicles. It just isn't worth Garda time.

I've talked to various members of the Gardai on occasion about cyclists red light jumping and cycling on paths, etc and the impression I got was that the Gardai aren't particularly worried about them, as it isn't a significant enough issue to warrant their attention. Most (if not all) will turn a blind eye to a cyclist breaking a pedestrian crossing if there are no people crossing the road for example, because it's a simple application of common sense.

Running red lights into crossing traffic is another thing altogether, but if you're dumb enough to do that, you won't be doing it for too long I guarantee you.

Burning Bridges

Mad Frenchies


In an effort to make cycling safer:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097882/Paris-allow-cyclists-run-red-lights-bid-cut-accidents.html

Grandpa Hassan

Burning Bridges wrote: »

Mad Frenchies


In an effort to make cycling safer:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097882/Paris-allow-cyclists-run-red-lights-bid-cut-accidents.html

I actually think that it is inevitable everywhere as the relentless increase in cyclists holds drivers up at junctions for longer and longer..

Motorists moan, but dont realise that their journey would be quicker if cyclists were permitted to go on a red.

Tony EH

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

I actually think that it is inevitable everywhere as the relentless increase in cyclists holds drivers up at junctions for longer and longer..

Motorists moan, but dont realise that their journey would be quicker if cyclists were permitted to go on a red.

And that's all this shit (and the previous and all subsequent threads) is about. People whinging about a frankly, insignificant, issue. An issue blown out of all reasonable proportion, because someone in a traffic jam saw a cyclist go through a red light and nothing happened. :pac:

dubscottie

RainyDay wrote: »

200 people are killed each year by motorists, so our priority should be on reducing that dramatically.

You don't know the exact circumstances of each of each persons death so don't keep banging out the old "cars kill 200 every year" drivel when trying to make a point.

Jawgap

dubscottie wrote: »

You don't know the exact circumstances of each of each persons death so don't keep banging out the old "cars kill 200 every year" drivel when trying to make a point.

According to the a National Safety Council the leading causes of traffic related road deaths and injuries are speed and alcohol consumption - two things wholly within the control of drivers.

papu

dubscottie wrote: »

You don't know the exact circumstances of each of each persons death so don't keep banging out the old "cars kill 200 every year" drivel when trying to make a point.

Yeah but we know that they weren't killed by someone on a bike.

CramCycle

papu wrote: »

Yeah but we know that they weren't killed by someone on a bike.

But alot of cyclists are drivers, so in theory they could have been killed by cyclists, fits in better with the tabloid scare mongering.

RainyDay

Dr Crippen wrote: »

No thanks, I know what dangerous driving is there are many factors such as road condition, driver performance and not driving within the speed limit and you going over the speed limit are part of that culture. So you by speeding, and then criticizing other road users are a hypocrite.

Moving the goalpost, by saying "what if you go 1 mile an hour over the limit" or watching other cars pass you by, does not in any way make that right.

Therefore, you are a hypocrite and I recommend not educating anyone in the skill of hypocrisy, its as simple as that. If you are concerned about deaths on the road, stay within the limit and for gods sake practice what you preach!


I bet you never break red lights....
I bet you never break the speed limit in your car... (again your retort)


All through this I have stated I am a cyclist and a motorist. I have been unbiased in my assessment of both sets of road users, stating in a previous post that daily I see good and bad road users.

I don't like saying this but you seem to be coming from a totally pro cyclist point of view. Using language like:

'In terms of cyclists breaking lights or other minor transgressions, we should do nothing until we have a clear understanding of what problemwe are trying to solve and what benefit will arise'

I am still laughing at this comment to be fair, it beggars belief, am I wrong in saying you posted a video of motorists breaking lights, why not balance that up with cyclists doing the same, just for an unbiased perspective


Bwaahaahaa - don't make me post the videos again, the ones showing drivers ignoring red lights, (your post)

I'm getting tired of this now. You have repeatedly failed to outline what problem you're trying to solve and what benefit will arise from solving it. You have repeatedly failed to explain why a theory test which has proven itself to be completely ineffective in ensuring good driving from motorists could be expected to have any positive impact for cyclists.

You have completely failed to work out how the Quote function works. It's a big fat fail really, isn't it?

RainyDay

dubscottie wrote: »

You don't know the exact circumstances of each of each persons death so don't keep banging out the old "cars kill 200 every year" drivel when trying to make a point.

papu wrote: »

Yeah but we know that they weren't killed by someone on a bike.

We do, actually - because they haven't. No-one has been killed by a cyclist in Ireland in the past ten years. There was one case around 2004 where a pedestrian died after hitting their head on the road after encountering a cyclist going the wrong way up a one-way street. It was indirect, but was caused by the cyclist. In that time, about 3,000 people have been killed by motorists. That's a fact. It may make you uncomfortable, mainly because it exposes the pointlessness of the 'cyclists break red lights all the time' arguement, but it is a fact.

Dr Crippen

@ Rainyday Ah thanks Your still a hypocrite though!

pmasterson95

This motorists kill more so cyclists are sound is so hilariously bizzare. More people get stabbed than shot. We should ignore guns and regulate knives.

RainyDay

Dr Crippen wrote: »

@ Rainyday Ah thanks Your still a hypocrite though!

I would have hoped that a school teacher would know the difference between "your" and "you're", but perhaps you got so caught up in your personal attack that you missed it.

pmasterson95 wrote: »

This motorists kill more so cyclists are sound is so hilariously bizzare. More people get stabbed than shot. We should ignore guns and regulate knives.

Not a great analogy - more like 'no-one gets killed with nail files, but they are potentially dangerous, so we should have a mandatory theory test for all nail file owners while ignoring all those people getting killed by guns or knives'.

rubadub

pmasterson95 wrote: »

This motorists kill more so cyclists are sound is so hilariously bizzare. More people get stabbed than shot. We should ignore guns and regulate knives.

You need a licence to have a gun and none for a regular knife. If a thread started with people saying "you need a licence for a gun, surely you should have to get a licence and training to use a kitchen knife". Then you would similarly see people saying its not that great an idea, and no goverment they know of demands it, and that gun licencing is a reasonable idea.

You would still get idiots saying "shut up you, this thread is about knife licences, not guns, stop bringing them up, start your own thread, nobody is talking about guns".

You might find a thread like that hilariously bizarre too, I would expect it.