Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Cyclists should do a theory test!
Options
Comments
-
And same for cars, right? Every driver who breaks a red light should be stopped and forced to show ID - and if no ID then the car gets siezed. I hope they have big pounds for storage there.
Absolutely. For three reasons:- If a motorist drives the way the average cyclist cycles, then they deserve to have the car taken off them and be brought to court for dangerous driving (ignoring lane directions, driving on footpaths, plowing through red signals mid-cycle) whether they have a drivers license or not.
- Motorists can have laws enforced against them by their car license plates. Caught speeding? Most likely by an automatic camera. There is no need for a motorist to be stopped, unless they're behaving like muppets (see point 1) ... in which case they must be stopped for the immediate safety of surrounding road users.
- With the credit card sized drivers licenses, there is no real reason for not carrying it.
0 -
How about the motorist who drives like the way the average motorist drives? The one who breaks the speed limit on every journey, uses their phone a few times a day, for those important calls and tweets, fails to indicate on a regular basis, and scares the crap out of those cyclists and pedestrians that have the misfortune to be in front of them on the road - Will all of those lose their cars too?- If a motorist drives the way the average cyclist cycles, then they deserve to have the car taken off them and be brought to court for dangerous driving (ignoring lane directions, driving on footpaths, plowing through red signals mid-cycle) whether they have a drivers license or not.
You are absolutely correct in theory. In practice, as shown repeatedly by the videos above, most motorists break traffic laws every day on every journey - speeding, breaking red lights and more. The excuse given for breaking red lights on this thread was that drivers couldn't stop because the guy behind them was planning on breaking the red light too.- Motorists can have laws enforced against them by their car license plates. Caught speeding? Most likely by an automatic camera. There is no need for a motorist to be stopped, unless they're behaving like muppets (see point 1) ... in which case they must be stopped for the immediate safety of surrounding road users.
You must have noticed that the current licensing/tax/insurance system does nothing to ensure a decent standard of driving on the road, but you choose to ignore this.0 -
The cyclist who broke a red light today came within an inch of being killed by me. Thanks to him for the shakes I'm still experiencing. Bastard.0
-
It's the shock that is most unpleasant, obviously if no one is injured.up for anything wrote: »The cyclist who broke a red light today came within an inch of being killed by me. Thanks to him for the shakes I'm still experiencing. Bastard.
This country's roads are dire. We need a proper system like the Dutch or something.0 -
silverfeather wrote: »
This country's roads are dire. We need a proper system like the Dutch or something.
Ban cars and runners.0 -
Advertisement
-
silverfeather wrote: »This country's roads are dire. We need a proper system like the Dutch or something.
A proper road system is not going to cure cyclists of breaking the rules of the road which they do constantly.0 -
I know a few cyclists who say that they are just as entitled to use the road as drivers in cars so if a car gets stuck behind them, tough, it's their right to use it.
I think yep fair enough they should be allowed but then should cyclists not have to incur the same costs as a driver, eg insurance, tax etc. (Obviously less than a car, a bike is a much smaller vehicle.) I don't understand how if cyclists are using the same service as a car, then why don't they have to pay the costs and suffer the penalties as car drivers. I have never heard a cyclists saying that. They just say they are entitled to use the road and twice I mentioned about paying tax, insurance, having a penalty point system they were appalled and said but they don't have a car and its better for the environment to cycle so they should be entitled to use the road without any of that.
And I know that a lot of drivers commit traffic infractions but in Dublin city centre I see cyclists doing it 99% of the time. They see you crossing the road at the green man and continue cycling nearly hitting you, there is a plague of cyclists using footpaths making everyone move out of there way, cycling the wrong way down a one way street, the amount I have seen on their phones... Yet I never see a garda around to stop them. I would love a Garza standing at the junction around Capel street/ Grattan bridge.... It is awful there!0 -
up for anything wrote: »A proper road system is not going to cure motorists and cyclists of breaking the rules of the road which they do constantly.
Fyp0 -
qwerty1991 wrote: »And I know that a lot of drivers commit traffic infractions but in Dublin city centre I see cyclists doing it 99% of the time. They see you crossing the road at the green man and continue cycling nearly hitting you, there is a plague of cyclists using footpaths making everyone move out of there way, cycling the wrong way down a one way street, the amount I have seen on their phones... Yet I never see a garda around to stop them. I would love a Garza standing at the junction around Capel street/ Grattan bridge.... It is awful there!
Exagerrate much?0 -
They're technically in the right. Its also often safer to take the lane rather than ride in the gutter just to not inconvenience someone who will have a clear passing opportunity in the next five minutes anyway....qwerty1991 wrote: »I know a few cyclists who say that they are just as entitled to use the road as drivers in cars so if a car gets stuck behind them, tough, it's their right to use it.
I think yep fair enough they should be allowed but then should cyclists not have to incur the same costs as a driver, eg insurance, tax etc. (Obviously less than a car, a bike is a much smaller vehicle.) I don't understand how if cyclists are using the same service as a car, then why don't they have to pay the costs and suffer the penalties as car drivers. I have never heard a cyclists saying that. They just say they are entitled to use the road and twice I mentioned about paying tax, insurance, having a penalty point system they were appalled and said but they don't have a car and its better for the environment to cycle so they should be entitled to use the road without any of that.
Roads are paid for from general taxation so cyclists have already paid for them. The other charges you mention are car specific for a reason usually....And I know that a lot of drivers commit traffic infractions but in Dublin city centre I see cyclists doing it 99% of the time. They see you crossing the road at the green man and continue cycling nearly hitting you, there is a plague of cyclists using footpaths making everyone move out of there way, cycling the wrong way down a one way street, the amount I have seen on their phones... Yet I never see a garda around to stop them. I would love a Garza standing at the junction around Capel street/ Grattan bridge.... It is awful there!
You do know its not technically illegal to use a phone while cycling. Stupid yes, illegal no.....
While driving a car however is another matter, would indeed be nice if the guards started enforcing that
Amazed, as a driver, cyclist and pedestrian how many posters want a more severe application of the law for cyclists than motorists in their tonne + of potentially lethal metal. While some cyclists do indeed break the law, honestly, how many of the drivers here can say they've never crept above the speed limit, used their phone while driving or parked illegally. Maybe they should consider the glass house they're in and put down the stones.....0 -
Advertisement
-
Grandpa Hassan wrote: »Exagerrate much?
I am not exaggerating, honestly.And I'm not against cyclists at all, I think the government should invest more money into cycle lanes etc. as it is a great form of transport, especially with the right infrastructure.
But I do have serious issues with cyclists breaking traffic laws. Yes other other users do it too, but in my personal experience it is cyclists that are the ones that nearly injure me. For example, the odd time I have seen cars break the lights is just as they turn red, following on the other cars before anyone has even started crossing the road. (Yes it is totally wrong and i am not trying to justify it) Whereas in my experience cyclists will go straight through a red when all vehicles are stationary and there are people crossing the road which is far more dangerous imo.
I do think there should be a little test, over half the time cyclists are very good using hand signals etc but if you are using a vehicle on the road/ footpath then you are capable of seriously injuring someone. So I think a little test or something is needed. If a pedestrian walks into you, its not going to hurt you whereas if a cyclist cycles into you, its very dangerous depending on the speed.0 -
They are entitled to use it, like any other road user. Just like the cars that hold me up every day on my cycle commute are entitled to use the road, and if I get stuck behind a car, tough, it’s their right to use it.qwerty1991 wrote: »I know a few cyclists who say that they are just as entitled to use the road as drivers in cars so if a car gets stuck behind them, tough, it's their right to use it.
Why on earth would you expect somebody using a completely different mode of transport to ‘incur the same costs’? Are you suggesting that air travel should now cost the same as ferry travel? Or that train travel should cost the same as cycling out of some bizarre sense of ‘equality’? It sounds like you just want to punish cyclists, which will of course, lead to more and more traffic jams, as cyclists would just get back into their cars instead.qwerty1991 wrote: »I think yep fair enough they should be allowed but then should cyclists not have to incur the same costs as a driver, eg insurance, tax etc. (Obviously less than a car, a bike is a much smaller vehicle.) I don't understand how if cyclists are using the same service as a car, then why don't they have to pay the costs and suffer the penalties as car drivers. I have never heard a cyclists saying that. They just say they are entitled to use the road and twice I mentioned about paying tax, insurance, having a penalty point system they were appalled and said but they don't have a car and its better for the environment to cycle so they should be entitled to use the road without any of that.
The reason that cyclists don’t pay insurance is because they don’t kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others. The reason that cyclists don’t pay motor tax is because they don’t emit carbon. And they don’t wear down the road and cause potholes.
99%? Really? Just curious – on what percentage of your car journeys do you break the speed limit? Maybe something like 99%? And at what percentage of light changes in Dublin do you see 1 or 2 or 3 cars skiting through on a red light – maybe something like 99%?qwerty1991 wrote: »And I know that a lot of drivers commit traffic infractions but in Dublin city centre I see cyclists doing it 99% of the time. They see you crossing the road at the green man and continue cycling nearly hitting you, there is a plague of cyclists using footpaths making everyone move out of there way, cycling the wrong way down a one way street, the amount I have seen on their phones... Yet I never see a garda around to stop them. I would love a Garza standing at the junction around Capel street/ Grattan bridge.... It is awful there!
If you’re not seeing 99% of drivers breaking the law, you are a very unobservant driver.
Yes. Yes you are.qwerty1991 wrote: »I am not exaggerating, honestly.
Yes. Yes you are.qwerty1991 wrote: »And I'm not against cyclists at all,
Your personal experience would seem to be very different from the road traffic statistics, which show that motorists kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others, while cyclists kill zero people each year.qwerty1991 wrote: »But I do have serious issues with cyclists breaking traffic laws. Yes other other users do it too, but in my personal experience it is cyclists that are the ones that nearly injure me.
The odd time? Who are you trying to kid. It happens at every junction in Dublin at almost every change of lights that 1 or 2 or 3 drivers go through on red. If you’re not seeing this, you are either not very observant, or you’ve just become immune to it as it happens all the time.qwerty1991 wrote: »For example, the odd time I have seen cars break the lights is just as they turn red, following on the other cars before anyone has even started crossing the road. (Yes it is totally wrong and i am not trying to justify it) Whereas in my experience cyclists will go straight through a red when all vehicles are stationary and there are people crossing the road which is far more dangerous imo.
But yes, you’re right to say that cyclists often break lights in a different way that cars break lights. But where is the huge danger to others here? Is there a pile of pedestrians being killed or maimed by cyclists? No – the road traffic injury statistics tell us this. And is there a huge number of cyclists risking their own lives? No – I can’t recall a single incident of a cyclist being killed as a result of breaking the lights.
So yes, it is a pain in the ass when cyclists do this, but the overall risk is minimal. Cyclists don’t kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others.
We have a great system for testing drivers. And yet still, we see drivers breaking lights, speeding, on their phones all the time. ‘A little test’ will do little or nothing to improve cycling standards on the road.qwerty1991 wrote: »I do think there should be a little test, over half the time cyclists are very good using hand signals etc but if you are using a vehicle on the road/ footpath then you are capable of seriously injuring someone. So I think a little test or something is needed. If a pedestrian walks into you, its not going to hurt you whereas if a cyclist cycles into you, its very dangerous depending on the speed.0 -
Really? Active enforcement? Are you living on another planet?
Look around you and see almost every car driver in the city routinely breaking the speed limit on the journey. Look at what % of car drivers are using their phone. Look at what percentage fail to indicate, or drive with a broken brake light.
Having said all that, could you please be specific as to what benefit or outcome you expect to arise from this licensing system - is it going to save lives, or reduce injury rates, or what? And please consider the 'opportunity cost' as part of this analysis - what will be the impact of diverting Garda time to give out 'strikes' from the road user group that kills 200+ people each year and maims thousands of others.
Sure, a lot of car drivers break the rules, but you are making a fallacious comparison. You are more likely to be caught breaking the rules of the road in a car than on a bike because cars can do more damage. Cyclists are more of a danger to themselves when they break the rules.
But, we are seeing a surge in the numbers of cyclists on the road, but little investment in proper cycling infrastructure. As more cyclists mingle with cars in a congested city there are going to more crashes, collisions and road-rage incidents. If the cyclist is at fault then the Guards should be able to issue the cycling equivalent of points. Cyclists have as much of an obligation to abide by the rules of the road as car drivers. I would envisage permit system having benefits that would include taking persistent rule breaking cyclists off the road, reminding cyclists that riding on public roads is not an absolute right and calming down drivers who think that cyclists can face no consequences for rule breaking.
Sure, it wouldn't be a perfect system. But the current road rule enforcement system just isn't designed to deal with the increasing numbers of cyclists we are seeing.0 -
Rainy Day I am not going to quote what you have written as the post would be too long but you are simply taking what you want from what I have said and ignoring the points I made. I never said cyclists and motorists should pay the same tax, I specifically said it should be less and I never said cyclists should pay tax for emissions?!But yes, you’re right to say that cyclists often break lights in a different way that cars break lights. But where is the huge danger to others here? Is there a pile of pedestrians being killed or maimed by cyclists? No – the road traffic injury statistics tell us this. And is there a huge number of cyclists risking their own lives? No – I can’t recall a single incident of a cyclist being killed as a result of breaking the lights.
So yes, it is a pain in the ass when cyclists do this, but the overall risk is minimal. Cyclists don’t kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others.
Also you seem to be stating that motorists are worse as they have all the statistics for killing/ injuring so therefore it is not as bad when cyclists break the rules?! The law is the law. The risk may be smaller but I still think cyclists should be penalized with a system akin to other road users (ie cars, trucks etc).
And just one last point. You have just assumed I am a driver and also stated that I am a very unobservant one. I actually don't drive at all. I walk everywhere. I have never ever nearly been injured or hit by a car but everyday at least once I have had to stop in the middle of the road whilst crossing as a cyclist has decided to cut through the lights.. I can either continue walking to make a point and be hit or just allow them to break the law and go through. Or else I have turned the corner of a footpath and met a cyclist coming around nearly hitting me. Or I have gone to cross a one way street thinking it is clear only to have a cyclist come along going in the wrong direction.
So that is where I get my 99% from. And that is why i think there should be mandatory training fro cyclists and a quasi penalty point system.0 -
No. Have you ever been a pedestrian in any of Ireland's main cities?Grandpa Hassan wrote: »Exagerrate much?
If a motorist speeds through a red light while simultaneously tweeting about their dry cleaning and menacing those road users with the right of way, then yes.How about the motorist who drives like the way the average motorist drives? The one who breaks the speed limit on every journey, uses their phone a few times a day, for those important calls and tweets, fails to indicate on a regular basis, and scares the crap out of those cyclists and pedestrians that have the misfortune to be in front of them on the road - Will all of those lose their cars too?
Complaining about motorist breaking (often arbitrary) speed limits while being part of a group that disregards other laws wholesale, is a bit rich, you must admit.
I notice that when I am crossing a street, I don't have to worry about Red Light Jumping motorists. I noticed that the two times that I've been nearly flattened crossing roads on green-man lights, both were because of law-breaking cyclists.You must have noticed that the current licensing/tax/insurance system does nothing to ensure a decent standard of driving on the road, but you choose to ignore this.0 -
There's one particular junction I pass twice a day up by Phibsborough in Dublin. I see motorists breaking the lights and driving through a green man every single day. I try to respect the rules of the road, lights etc when driving AND cycling but have seen as many violations of the rules by both - not indicating or checking are you clear before turning, breaking lights etc. If motorists are doing this with a theory and practical test, not sure what a theory test would do to help cyclists.0
-
Agreed.0
-
When I'm trying to cross the road walking through town and i cross on the green man, i just start walking in a straight line,
If a road user is still traveling through the green man then I'll be sure to walk straight into them causing them to slam on and have their own accident or in the case of a cyclist hopefully they will fall and hurt themselves, and if I'm injured as a result of their ignorance then I'll be sure to get the gardai involved and legal action taken.
This is the same method for any road user
If anyone is going to be that ignorant to me trying to cross the road then I'll do the same back BUT if you treat it with respect then I'll treat them with respect back0 -
Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: », and if I'm injured as a result of their ignorance then I'll be sure to get the gardai involved and legal action taken.
And if you're killed you can always come back and haunt them.0 -
Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »When I'm trying to cross the road walking through town and i cross on the green man, i just start walking in a straight line,
Just a word of caution for other readers, please make sure the junction is clear before crossing. Some vehicles may be waiting to complete a turn or still exiting the junction. Even the size of the junction can be an issue. The pedestrian crossing lights outside Holles St Hospital in Dublin are fully 50m from the red lights coming from Merrion Square. A vehicle using this road may have entered the junction on green and have it turn red for a number of seconds before passing through the pedestrian crossing section. A car or bike at 30kph will take 6 seconds to cross this junction.0 -
Advertisement
-
There is nothing fallacious about the comparison. I didn’t mention anything about the numbers who are caught. I mentioned the numbers of those who break the law. Look around you and see every driver breaking the speed limit on every journey – this is the group of road users who kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others. And you want to focus regulatory and enforcement attention on the group of road users who don’t kill anybody?Sure, a lot of car drivers break the rules, but you are making a fallacious comparison. You are more likely to be caught breaking the rules of the road in a car than on a bike because cars can do more damage. Cyclists are more of a danger to themselves when they break the rules.
Two points here – first of all, be careful what you wish for. Yes, we are seeing a surge in cycling numbers. If you create a bureaucratic system that deters cycling, lots of those cyclists will get back into their cars. If you thing congestion/crashes/collisions are bad now, wait until all those extra cars are on the road.But, we are seeing a surge in the numbers of cyclists on the road, but little investment in proper cycling infrastructure. As more cyclists mingle with cars in a congested city there are going to more crashes, collisions and road-rage incidents. If the cyclist is at fault then the Guards should be able to issue the cycling equivalent of points. Cyclists have as much of an obligation to abide by the rules of the road as car drivers.
Secondly, there is a current system that allows the Gardai to prosecute cyclists at fault. It’s a bit of a cumbersome system, but it exists. And you want to focus the attention of regulators, legislators and enforcers on creating a whole new system, that will have the same amount of enforcement resources as the current one (very little). There will be a whole new system, and no enforcement as usual.
Thanks for clarifying the ‘benefits’. I note the benefits do not include a reduction in the death or injury toll on the roads, or reduced cost. You might also try to clarify the opportunity cost – by focusing on the cyclists who aren’t killing anyone, how many more deaths and injuries will be caused by the motorists who do kill quite a few.I would envisage permit system having benefits that would include taking persistent rule breaking cyclists off the road, reminding cyclists that riding on public roads is not an absolute right and calming down drivers who think that cyclists can face no consequences for rule breaking.
Cyclists pay tax. They pay income tax on their salaries, which are on average, higher than motorists salaries based on research in other countries. They pay VAT on their bike purchase, bike accessories and bike repairs, along with their other purchases. They pay customs duties, and CAT and all the other taxes too.qwerty1991 wrote: »Rainy Day I am not going to quote what you have written as the post would be too long but you are simply taking what you want from what I have said and ignoring the points I made. I never said cyclists and motorists should pay the same tax, I specifically said it should be less and I never said cyclists should pay tax for emissions?!
Indeed, the law is the law. And most people on the roads break the law every day – most drivers, most cyclists and most pedestrians. And yes, I am stating that motorists are worse given that they kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others. And I’m amazed at those who want to focus attention on cyclists who don’t kill anyone, while justifying and ignoring the death toll caused by motorists. Cyclists can indeed be penalised with system akin to other road users and are subject to Garda prosecution for cycling offences.qwerty1991 wrote: »Also you seem to be stating that motorists are worse as they have all the statistics for killing/ injuring so therefore it is not as bad when cyclists break the rules?! The law is the law. The risk may be smaller but I still think cyclists should be penalized with a system akin to other road users (ie cars, trucks etc).
So I’ll ask the question again – what benefit would arise from a theory test or penalty point system for cyclists? How will this improve quality of life?
I apologise for my assumption that you were a driver. I stand by my assumption that are very unobservant, if you mainly see cyclists breaking traffic law and not motorists. I note your interesting personal experiences – but I really don’t think that personal experiences are a sound basis for future policy making. The road traffic statistics show clearly where the danger is on the roads – it is from the motorists that kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others.qwerty1991 wrote: »And just one last point. You have just assumed I am a driver and also stated that I am a very unobservant one. I actually don't drive at all. I walk everywhere. I have never ever nearly been injured or hit by a car but everyday at least once I have had to stop in the middle of the road whilst crossing as a cyclist has decided to cut through the lights.. I can either continue walking to make a point and be hit or just allow them to break the law and go through. Or else I have turned the corner of a footpath and met a cyclist coming around nearly hitting me. Or I have gone to cross a one way street thinking it is clear only to have a cyclist come along going in the wrong direction.
So that is where I get my 99% from. And that is why i think there should be mandatory training fro cyclists and a quasi penalty point system.
For the record, yes, I’ve seen cyclists pushing through pedestrian crossings when the green light is on. If the timing is right, I stick my shoulder out and catch them as they go through. Yes, I’ve seen cyclists on the pavements, who occasionally make me feel nervious. I’ve done the shoulder trick or put out my arms and hooshed them onto the path. It gets up my nose when I see cyclists doing this stuff. But it doesn’t kill anybody, unlike the dangers caused by motorists that you are choosing to ignore.
So once again – what benefit will arise from this system? And what will be the opportunity cost of focusing on cyclists while ignoring the death toll?qwerty1991 wrote: »So that is where I get my 99% from. And that is why i think there should be mandatory training fro cyclists and a quasi penalty point system.
Now it’s getting interesting – so it’s actually OK for motorists to break red lights with their ton of metal, once they aren’t speeding and tweeting at the same time. But those damn cyclists with their 10kg bikes – they’re the really dangerous ones? And you say I’m ‘a bit rich’?If a motorist speeds through a red light while simultaneously tweeting about their dry cleaning and menacing those road users with the right of way, then yes.
Complaining about motorist breaking (often arbitrary) speed limits while being part of a group that disregards other laws wholesale, is a bit rich, you must admit.
I notice that when I am crossing a street, I don't have to worry about Red Light Jumping motorists. I noticed that the two times that I've been nearly flattened crossing roads on green-man lights, both were because of law-breaking cyclists.
Perhaps you’d like to explain the difference between your personal experiences with those dangerous cyclists, and the national road traffic statistics, which show that cyclists don’t kill or flatten anyone, but motorists kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others? There wouldn’t be an ever-so-slight touch of bias showing through there Sean, by any chance?0 -
There is nothing fallacious about the comparison. I didn’t mention anything about the numbers who are caught. I mentioned the numbers of those who break the law. Look around you and see every driver breaking the speed limit on every journey – this is the group of road users who kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others. And you want to focus regulatory and enforcement attention on the group of road users who don’t kill anybody?
Two points here – first of all, be careful what you wish for. Yes, we are seeing a surge in cycling numbers. If you create a bureaucratic system that deters cycling, lots of those cyclists will get back into their cars. If you thing congestion/crashes/collisions are bad now, wait until all those extra cars are on the road.
Secondly, there is a current system that allows the Gardai to prosecute cyclists at fault. It’s a bit of a cumbersome system, but it exists. And you want to focus the attention of regulators, legislators and enforcers on creating a whole new system, that will have the same amount of enforcement resources as the current one (very little). There will be a whole new system, and no enforcement as usual.
Thanks for clarifying the ‘benefits’. I note the benefits do not include a reduction in the death or injury toll on the roads, or reduced cost. You might also try to clarify the opportunity cost – by focusing on the cyclists who aren’t killing anyone, how many more deaths and injuries will be caused by the motorists who do kill quite a few.
If the number of cyclists keeps increasing, but nothing is done to enforce standards upon the poor ones, then I can assure you that the numbers of deaths will rise as cyclists increasingly come in to conflict with motor vehicles.0 -
If the number of cyclists keeps increasing, but nothing is done to enforce standards upon the poor ones, then I can assure you that the numbers of deaths will rise as cyclists increasingly come in to conflict with motor vehicles.
Nice victim-blaming, while research from other counties would show that generally, cyclists are rarely to blame for incidents involving cyclists.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study
But hey, let's keep focusing on cyclists and bury our heads in the sands about the deaths and injuries caused by motorists.0 -
Nice victim-blaming, while research from other counties would show that generally, cyclists are rarely to blame for incidents involving cyclists.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study
But hey, let's keep focusing on cyclists and bury our heads in the sands about the deaths and injuries caused by motorists.
Ahem... "The 64-page analysis found that police attributed responsibility for collisions more or less evenly between drivers and cyclists overall"
Need I say more?0 -
-
Yes, you do need to say more. How about you say the bit that immediately follows that quote in the article;Ahem... "The 64-page analysis found that police attributed responsibility for collisions more or less evenly between drivers and cyclists overall"
Need I say more?The 64-page analysis found that police attributed responsibility for collisions more or less evenly between drivers and cyclists overall, but this was skewed by the fact that when child riders were involved their behaviour was named as a primary factor more than three-quarters of the time.
With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.
And how about you explain how penalty points for cyclists breaking red lights will help, given that;A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs, or failing to wear high-visibility clothing and use lights, a government-commissioned study has discovered.
This is a witch-hunt - an attempt to divert attention from the death toll on the road caused by motorists. Did I mention that motorists kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others?0 -
Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »When I'm trying to cross the road walking through town and i cross on the green man, i just start walking in a straight line,
If a road user is still traveling through the green man then I'll be sure to walk straight into them causing them to slam on and have their own accident or in the case of a cyclist hopefully they will fall and hurt themselves, and if I'm injured as a result of their ignorance then I'll be sure to get the gardai involved and legal action taken.
This is the same method for any road user
If anyone is going to be that ignorant to me trying to cross the road then I'll do the same back BUT if you treat it with respect then I'll treat them with respect back
Same thing happened to me!
Green man and this idiot in a wheelchair try's to cut across my path I continued in a straight line and shouted "the green man is walking professor xavier" before I kicked him out of his chair!
He won't do that again!0 -
machiavellianme wrote: »But where is the motor on a bike?
Ssssshhhhhh..its a secret!
http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/06/news/claim-contador-staged-puncture-to-hide-motor-in-giro-bike_3726810 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement