Cyclists should do a theory test!

Dr Crippen

RainyDay wrote: »

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.



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'.

Ah rainyday are you really going for that approach? Its a pity and I am sorry to see it. The last act of a desperate person really.

I didn't attack you I just purely pointed out how you are and continue to be a hypocrite by your motoring behaviour and then filming motorist driving badly too. I just wish you could see that

When you don't like peoples opinions or points you revert to childish behavior.

I wont post anymore I think I might have upset you, happy cycling and be careful out there on your bike or in your car.

Jawgap

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.

No, we shouldn't ignore one in favour of the other - we should regulate both differently which is effectively what happens.

Bikes and cars are qualitatively different - society as a whole benefits from more people cycling (healthier population, less pollution, fewer road injuries, improved balance of payments etc), therefore the barriers to cycling should be minimised.

More car drivers, means more cars - which, beyond a certain fairly low level, is bad for society - as it means congestion, collisions, pollution etc and every car and every drop of fuel has to be imported.

shane7218

Almost knocked over this morning by someone cycling through a red light when pedestrians were crossing. A lot of cyclists in Dublin need to be made watch this video http://youtube.com/watch?v=it-dTcFGsFc because they cant seem to follow the rules of the road.

Jawgap

shane7218 wrote: »

Almost knocked over this morning by someone cycling through a red light when pedestrians were crossing. A lot of cyclists in Dublin need to be made watch this videohttp://youtube.com/watch?v=it-dTcFGsFc because they cant seem to follow the rules of the road.

.......and to balance that out, I crossed a road or two this morning and no one almost knocked me over

RainyDay

shane7218 wrote: »

Almost knocked over this morning by someone cycling through a red light when pedestrians were crossing. A lot of cyclists in Dublin need to be made watch this video http://youtube.com/watch?v=it-dTcFGsFc because they cant seem to follow the rules of the road.

A lot of drivers in Dublin need to be made to watch this video because they can't seem to follow the rules of the road;

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

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Ah rainyday are you really going for that approach? Its a pity and I am sorry to see it. The last act of a desperate person really.

I didn't attack you I just purely pointed out how you are and continue to be a hypocrite by your motoring behaviour and then filming motorist driving badly too. I just wish you could see that

When you don't like peoples opinions or points you revert to childish behavior.

I wont post anymore I think I might have upset you, happy cycling and be careful out there on your bike or in your car.

You attacked me as a person, instead of attacking my post. That's a personal attack. Shame on you for doing it, and shame on you for defending it.

Boom_Bap

The same can be said of cyclists watching that video as well, there are a few examples of cyclists doing stupid things in it as well.....even though the guy shooting is only trying to catch motorists.
And pedestrians also....in fact they guy filming breaks the green cross code by walking in front of cars before it's safe to start crossing the road.

Nonetheless, its a great example of how all people that use the roads make mistakes. ALL.

Dr Crippen

RainyDay wrote: »

A lot of drivers in Dublin need to be made to watch this video because they can't seem to follow the rules of the road;

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

You attacked me as a person, instead of attacking my post. That's a personal attack. Shame on you for doing it, and shame on you for defending it.

I have to say this , the drama you accuse others of you seem to be a little guilty of, I have no shame in pointing out your double standard.

I was calling what you posted hypocritical and by virtue that makes you a hypocrite or do you want to discuss that?

Don't be hypocritical and you will be fine, by the way you've being slinging it around all the time, attacking throughout and you have been pulled up on it,more than once. Man up!

1. "I'm not going to try and educate you any more, as you seem to be fairly impervious to facts"
2. "You have completely failed to work out how the Quote function works. It's a big fat fail really, isn't it? "
3. "I would have hoped that a school teacher would know the difference between "your" and "you're"
4. "If you can't see the difference, you're not a very good driver"

Dr Crippen

thanks to all I learned a lot from the posts and some interesting stuff was discussed, enjoy the summer and the bike rides

RainyDay

Boom_Bap wrote: »

The same can be said of cyclists watching that video as well, there are a few examples of cyclists doing stupid things in it as well.....even though the guy shooting is only trying to catch motorists.
And pedestrians also....in fact they guy filming breaks the green cross code by walking in front of cars before it's safe to start crossing the road.

Yes, lots of people making mistakes in the video, though I'm not quite sure it's fair to blame the guy filming for crossing with the green light, instead of the motorists who are blowing through the red light.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

I have to say this , the drama you accuse others of you seem to be a little guilty of, I have no shame in pointing out your double standard.

I was calling what you posted hypocritical and by virtue that makes you a hypocrite or do you want to discuss that?

Don't be hypocritical and you will be fine, by the way you've being slinging it around all the time, attacking throughout and you have been pulled up on it,more than once. Man up!

1. "I'm not going to try and educate you any more, as you seem to be fairly impervious to facts"
2. "You have completely failed to work out how the Quote function works. It's a big fat fail really, isn't it? "
3. "I would have hoped that a school teacher would know the difference between "your" and "you're"
4. "If you can't see the difference, you're not a very good driver"

I guess you might get away with that kind of patronising nonsense when dealing with schoolkids in a classroom, but you won't generally get away with it when dealing with adults.

There is no hypocracy in my position. I break the law every day when I cycle. I break the law most times I drive a car. Just like 99.99% of other road users. I don't endanger the lives of other road users, and I don't get up on my high horse about others breaking the law. It is dangerous driving that needs to be stopped, not minor traffic transgressions.

It's a shame that you don't have the judgement to see the difference, and it's a shame that you still can't see the difference between attacking a post and attacking a person.

Boom_Bap

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, lots of people making mistakes in the video, though I'm not quite sure it's fair to blame the guy filming for crossing with the green light, instead of the motorists who are blowing through the red light.

Safe Cross Code.

Stop. Look. Listen.

He did all those but walked out into moving objects (although with a green man) to make a point. My 4 year old knows not to do that.

I don't mean to attack the video, it highlights alot of problems we have, but offers no solution. But if we are to examine the video, we need to do it for all aspects of road use.
The guy should really film the next set of lights before the McDonalds, for some reason there is a real problem there of people not seeing the lights at all.


As far as a theory test, this is not possible. I couldn't ask my 4 year old to sit one. Well, she would do it, but I don't think the person correcting would be able to interpret her scrawls like I can.
Better education is what is required. To use my 4 year old as an example again, she learned how to cross the street and observe 'pedestrian rules' in creche.

The next step should be continuation of that and extending to cycling training in primary school. If our country is turning green, we need to start educating ages ago and not just a thought now.
I know there is training centres for cycling, there was one in Clontarf when I was growing up.
There was an excellent fair in St Annes Park last weekend giving tips and education for all ages on cycling along with some practical courses and demonstrations.
We need more of this, and more awareness that these things are taking place.

RainyDay

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Safe Cross Code.

Stop. Look. Listen.

He did all those but walked out into moving objects (although with a green man) to make a point. My 4 year old knows not to do that.

I don't mean to attack the video, it highlights alot of problems we have, but offers no solution. But if we are to examine the video, we need to do it for all aspects of road use.

It's hard to know exactly what happened as you don't know how or where he was carrying the camera. Maybe he had it in his outstretched hand, so it was his hand/arm in front of the car, not his body. Either way, he probably did more to discourage cars from breaking the lights by appearing in front of them than any Garda is ever going to do, at minimal risk to himself. I've done the same at lights where cars or cyclists have broken through, just to make a point.

Tony Beetroot

Boom_Bap wrote: »

As far as a theory test, this is not possible. I couldn't ask my 4 year old to sit one. Well, she would do it, but I don't think the person correcting would be able to interpret her scrawls like I can.

A 4 year old should not sit one because a 4 year old should not be cycling on national, regional or secondary roads. What kind of a parent would subject their child to such.

NicoleW85

In my primary school in antrim, we did a cycling proficiency test at the age of 11. The playground was marked out in white paint with various road markings to mimic a t-junction, main road, roundabout & zebra crossing. We had different scenarios and did lots of practice for months before an external examiner came in and observed us. It may have been 18 yrs ago but it's all stuck with me. It's made me more aware, both as a cyclist & a driver. Education is valuable

Pinch Flat

Tony Beetroot wrote: »

A 4 year old should not sit one because a 4 year old should not be cycling on national, regional or secondary roads. What kind of a parent would subject their child to such.

Plenty of cyclists use these roads with their children

Boom_Bap

Tony Beetroot wrote: »

A 4 year old should not sit one because a 4 year old should not be cycling on national, regional or secondary roads. What kind of a parent would subject their child to such.

It's quite normal and it would probably be responsible parents that have educated their children on road safety.
But what you have said is part of the argument, if there is to be a test or training, there needs to be rules on where and when people of all ages can and can't cycle.
From what you are saying, children should be on footpaths? But if my understanding is correct, a cyclist (a child on a bike falls into this category) would be breaking the law if it's on a footpath that is not marked as a cycle lane.

Grandpa Hassan

Tony Beetroot wrote: »

A 4 year old should not sit one because a 4 year old should not be cycling on national, regional or secondary roads. What kind of a parent would subject their child to such.

Of course they will. A rural road in some out of the way village on a Sunday morning with the family. It's the other end of the scale to a lycra clad commuter in Dublin. But if you're going to legislate, it's going to apply equally.

Or would you suggest drawing an arbitrary line somewhere. Age? Type of road? Speed of bike?

tigerboon

Anyone with a driving licence is supposed to be a competent driver. As a competent driver you are supposed to drive with due care to other road users. It doesn't matter about the other person having done a theory test, training or anything else. I drive about 50 to 60,000 km every year for close on 20 years and have never had an accident. I find if your brakes, steering wheel, accelerator are working you will safely get around slower moving traffic. Pedestrian and cycle traffic never had to do these theory tests in past when people were less stuck up their own holes so can all the motor heads on this thread please cop themselves on.

Tony Beetroot

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Or would you suggest drawing an arbitrary line somewhere. Age? Type of road? Speed of bike?

You yourself can be deciding that, I wont be parenting anyone's child here.

Grandpa Hassan

Tony Beetroot wrote: »

You yourself can be deciding that, I wont be parenting anyone's child here.

You know very well that I am referring to the application of any cycle theory test law. Not parenting. Where do you propose drawing the line with respect to whom it should apply?

dubscottie

Jawgap wrote: »

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.

But not the single cause. I know of 2 people that died on the roads.

One came off a motorbike having hit melted tar and a car driver that hit black ice.. Both motorists, but was it there fault? What would you say if it had been cyclists..

It would have been the councils fault etc etc...

dubscottie

papu wrote: »

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

Prove it.. How do you know that someone was not killed trying to avoid a cyclist?

dubscottie

RainyDay wrote: »

A lot of drivers in Dublin need to be made to watch this video because they can't seem to follow the rules of the road;

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

You attacked me as a person, instead of attacking my post. That's a personal attack. Shame on you for doing it, and shame on you for defending it.

You are aware (if you knew anything about the road traffic act) in most cases the cars were right to go through..

Slamming on the anchors is idiotic and dangerous in that situation. Its covered in the road traffic act.

I think that the time between light changes is too short however.. 1min in on the video and I see the first "true" red light jumper. White van man.

Your should know amber means prepare to stop (if safe to do so) and red means stop..

But I know cyclists have problems with the basics of red = stop, green man = go for walkers.

Why did DDC waste money on putting the little green and red bike traffic lights at junctions when cyclists seen incapable of understanding them?

Yes mandatory theory test for cyclists. At age 14. No test, no bike.

sdanseo

I'd hazard a guess that more of the stuff cyclists do wrong in traffic is stuff they know they shouldn't do, or do intentionally. It's very hard to cut in front of a car, run a red light or plough through a pedestrian crossing without realising you're doing it.

Motorists who drive dangerously are also in this category, but careless motoring is harder to define because people do it without realising how much of an idiot they're being. Lane hogging for example - I've politely flashed the lights at drivers for this to be met with confused, inexplicable zombie faces because they simply don't understand they're doing anything wrong. I don't think there's as many situations where a cyclist has this excuse, unless perhaps they're just under the impression that because they don't have an engine they're just not dangerous.

Pinch Flat

dubscottie wrote: »

You are aware (if you knew anything about the road traffic act) in most cases the cars were right to go through..

Slamming on the anchors is idiotic and dangerous in that situation. Its covered in the road traffic act.

I think that the time between light changes is too short however.. 1min in on the video and I see the first "true" red light jumper. White van man.

Your should know amber means prepare to stop (if safe to do so) and red means stop.........

You're not the first person here to justify red light breaking for the cars in that clip.

Be interested to see what stance a Garda would take. I'm sure he / she would be all ears :rolleyes:

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/we-write-about-cars-jumping-lights-in-dublin-then-this-happens-at-the-same-lights/

dubscottie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

You're not the first person here to justify red light breaking for the cars in that clip.

Be interested to see what stance a Garda would take. I'm sure he / she would be all ears :rolleyes:

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/we-write-about-cars-jumping-lights-in-dublin-then-this-happens-at-the-same-lights/

So.. No linky.. Got something for laser eye stuff..

Even if the link did work.. Whataboutry..

What is the mindset in cyclists that they think they are above the law??

Once again you go an about cars etc..

I can do what about stuff too..

What about the 90% of cyclists that think a green man is a signal for them to go..

What about that..

Answer on a postcard as you don't seem to have one here

Pinch Flat

dubscottie wrote: »

So.. No linky.. Got something for laser eye stuff..

Even if the link did work.. Whataboutry..

What is the mindset in cyclists that they think they are above the law??

Once again you go an about cars etc..

I can do what about stuff too..

What about the 90% of cyclists that think a green man is a signal for them to go..

What about that..

Answer on a postcard as you don't seem to have one here

A cyclist should never break a light. Some do, some don't. Some cars break lights, some don't.

As I said motorists will try explain away breaking red lights. I had someone else on another social media platform try to explain away drink driving, which he saw as less of an issue that red light breaking for cyclists. 150 drivers a week are caught drink driving. I would suspect more that 150 cyclists a week (or even a day) break reds. But the consequence is at each end of the spectrum.

I would like to see your link about the 90% of cyclists who see a green man as a signal to go - some do, some don't.

There's situations where cyclists and motorists should be allowed beak lights - Idaho stops, filter left or right on red - these would help traffic flow and cut out these arguments. But at the moment all vehicles must stop on red. Some do, some don't.

RainyDay

dubscottie wrote: »

You are aware (if you knew anything about the road traffic act) in most cases the cars were right to go through..

Slamming on the anchors is idiotic and dangerous in that situation. Its covered in the road traffic act.

I think that the time between light changes is too short however.. 1min in on the video and I see the first "true" red light jumper. White van man.

Your should know amber means prepare to stop (if safe to do so) and red means stop..

I'm not sure if it's funny or sad that you're prepared to preach while being so fundamentally wrong. Amber does not mean 'prepare to stop'. It means 'stop if it safe to stop' - a distinct difference;

http://www.rotr.ie/rules-for-driving/traffic-lights-and-signals/traffic-lights.html

If you need to 'drop the anchors' in urban traffic, you're driving way too fast. It's like you're justifying the amber/red coming as a total surprise to these drivers. Newsflash - green lights switch, it's going to happen - just a matter of time. Drivers need to be ready, and that's the major purpose of the amber light - to prepare you for red.

CramCycle

Tony Beetroot wrote: »

A 4 year old should not sit one because a 4 year old should not be cycling on national, regional or secondary roads. What kind of a parent would subject their child to such.

Apparently the time of parent I am, one who wants my kids to be healthy and not reliant on others as he grows up. What a sh1t parent I am.

CramCycle

RainyDay wrote: »

. Amber does not mean 'prepare to stop'. It means 'stop if it safe to stop' - a distinct difference;

For anyone who has done the driving test will know, any light that is green should be approached with the possibility that it will change at any time.

Driving 101, unless it flicks to amber just as you enter, maybe a small fraction before to account for reaction times, or as you are on the junction (ie you will stop in the junction if you did) you should be able to stop before the white line.

RainyDay

CramCycle wrote: »

For anyone who has done the driving test will know, any light that is green should be approached with the possibility that it will change at any time.

Driving 101, unless it flicks to amber just as you enter, maybe a small fraction before to account for reaction times, or as you are on the junction (ie you will stop in the junction if you did) you should be able to stop before the white line.

Indeed, and more again - it's not just the possibility, it's the probability, in fact the absolute certainty that it is going to change to amber, it's just a matter of time. And these guys then use it as an excuse, as it if comes as a total surprise.

Most of those drivers go though that junction every day. They know the light sequence well, and have a good idea for how long it takes. But they have to push, push, push, ignore the amber, and treat the red as an advisory to start thinking about stopping. Which takes time away from the traffic coming the other direction, so they do exactly the same when they get their red, which takes time away from the original traffic direction etc etc.

It's pointless, senseless and dangerous.