Road User Education

Roadhawk

After looking into the Irish RTA statistics on the Central Statistics Office website I noticed that the vast majority of accidents happened at the fault of the road user.

I am aware that we are only human so we are bound to make mistakes but I think there should be a re-test for all motorists every 5 to 10 years and cyclists should have licenses.

Wouldn't this breed a better knowledge around road safety?

AmboMan

Roadhawk wrote: »

After looking into the Irish RTA statistics on the Central Statistics Office website I noticed that the vast majority of accidents happened at the fault of the road user.

I am aware that we are only human so we are bound to make mistakes but I think there should be a re-test for all motorists every 5 to 10 years and cyclists should have licenses.

Wouldn't this breed a better knowledge around road safety?

Could you post a link to that, thanks ?

Roadhawk

AmboMan wrote: »

Could you post a link to that, thanks ?

Cant...its saying im a "new user"?

Roadhawk

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/

Roadhawk

Roadhawk wrote: »

http /www .rsa .ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/

you will have to take out the few spaces in between.

L1011

RSA site has some claims along those lines, e.g. this http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/RCF20083-2-2010.pdf stating driver error for 90%, pedestrian error for 6% with every other factor making up the remaining 4%. Old statistics at this stage but road factors were only 3% then and roads have improved significantly since.

Older driver retraining should have been introduced decades ago - although they wouldn't be an age group that causes many collisions.

ceannair06

Would definitely support some sort of registration/licence for cyclists.

07Lapierre

ceannair06 wrote: »

Would definitely support some sort of registration/licence for cyclists.

I wouldn't. I'm already registered and I already have TWO licences. I have a cycling Ireland Licence and a driving licence.

Roadhawk

ceannair06 wrote: »

Would definitely support some sort of registration/licence for cyclists.

It would make sense no that there are fine etc. being handed out. I mean if the cyclist had no ID on them how does the Gard issue a fine? If they had a license they could be directly held accountable for their actions.

On another note, as far as i am aware the "Garda on bike" unit have to complete a 2 week course on how to cycle a bike in Templemore before they are allowed to use one as a Gard. It wouldn't be a bad idea to have some sort of test. Might raise some extra revenue for the government.

Roadhawk

07Lapierre wrote: »

I wouldn't. I'm already registered and I already have TWO licences. I have a cycling Ireland Licence and a driving licence.

I have never heard of a "cycling Ireland Licence". How do you get one? is it a club thing? is it optional to carry when cycling?

km991148

Generally, ensuring more people were tested properly in the first place would be better - as far as I understand there are still a lot of people on Irish roads who have barely sat a test.

Having high number of driver errors leads me to think of there being a systematic or qualitative issue with the current testing framework. retesting every x years with sh!tty testing procedures or poor general education wont help much.

Additionally, enforcement of existing laws is pretty p!ss poor over here, making it easy for standards to slip (amber gambling in Dublin is rife, as is in town speeding - 60-70 in residential/50 zones is regular) - never mind all the usual stuff like middle lane drivers etc..

Roadhawk wrote: »

cyclists should have licenses.

That seems a bit left field (based on the linked stats) and would be a shame to let a thread about general road education descend into a repeat of one on 'number plates for bikes'

Macy0161

Roadhawk wrote: »

It would make sense no that there are fine etc. being handed out. I mean if the cyclist had no ID on them how does the Gard issue a fine? If they had a license they could be directly held accountable for their actions.

There's no new offences, so the process is exactly the same as when they used to issue summons. In fact, there's less incentive to lie now with a fixed penalty than there was when it was a summons, day off work for court, and potential for much larger fines given by a judge.

A licence for cyclists is unworkable - what age would you introduce it, given there's no minimum age for a cyclist? And is the evidence there that road safety of cyclists is the fault of cyclists rather than other categories of road user? And why stop at cyclists, what about pedestrians?

I went to school in the UK, and I think the RoSPA Cycling Proficiency course I did in primary school has stood to me my entire cycling life. Money that'd be wasted on licences would be better spent on a similar scheme here.

07Lapierre

Roadhawk wrote: »

I have never heard of a "cycling Ireland Licence". How do you get one? is it a club thing? is it optional to carry when cycling?

Its 3rd party Insurance for Cyclists.

http://www.cyclingireland.ie/page/membership/new-membership

Its not compulsory and no, you do not have to be in a club..anyone can take out membership. Most Club cyclist you see on the road will have CI insurance.

07Lapierre

Roadhawk wrote: »

After looking into the Irish RTA statistics on the Central Statistics Office website I noticed that the vast majority of accidents happened at the fault of the road user.

I am aware that we are only human so we are bound to make mistakes but I think there should be a re-test for all motorists every 5 to 10 years and cyclists should have licenses.

Wouldn't this breed a better knowledge around road safety?

Better education and better enforcement of ALL Rules of the Road for all road users, regardless of their mode of transport.

having a licence does not make you a better road user. It just means you have passed a test and achieved the minimum legal requirement to drive a car. There are plenty of inexperienced Drivers out there with Full Licences.

Danjamin1

In relation to licences/numberplates/insurance for cyclists, I have nothing to add beyond what's been said by 07lapierre & Macy0161 apart from the fact that it's not practical to enforce.

I'm not against the concept of retesting at certain points during a persons lifetime, however I think it'd be far better to improve the current testing system that's in place. It's 10 years since I sat my test, however I remember at the time thinking the reverse around a corner was something I could never see myself needing. My brother is learning to drive at the moment and this maneuver is still required. And yet somehow there's no requirement to learn to parallel park correctly. Similarly there was no requirement to know how to maintain a car, repair a puncture, etc. when I was learning, not sure if this changed recently though? Anyway, my point being that a refresher on the rules of the road & driver awareness would be good, but I'd prefer to see improvements to what is taught in the first place before introducing an additional testing burden on people.

Mrs OBumble

07Lapierre wrote: »

I wouldn't. I'm already registered and I already have TWO licences. I have a cycling Ireland Licence and a driving licence.

Did you have to sit a test to get the Cycling Ireland License?

Is your driving licence covering classes of vehicles with two wheels? I'm thinking they'e quite different to four-wheeled ones.

Macy0161 wrote: »

A licence for cyclists is unworkable - what age would you introduce it, given there's no minimum age for a cyclist?

There should be. Either a minimum age or (better) a minimum competency test. Kids need to be able to handle a bicycle safely, appreciate risks and take actions to manage them before they should be riding on roads or footpaths. Bicycles on road are not toys.

07Lapierre

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Did you have to sit a test to get the Cycling Ireland License?

Is your driving licence covering classes of vehicles with two wheels? I'm thinking they'e quite different to four-wheeled ones.

No..Did you do a test before getting your bike for Christmas?

Having a licence is not the same has having "Experience"

I've a licence that covers me to drive cars and Rigid Trucks. I don't have my HGV license (yet)

Roadhawk

07Lapierre wrote: »

Better education and better enforcement of ALL Rules of the Road for all road users, regardless of their mode of transport.

having a licence does not make you a better road user. It just means you have passed a test and achieved the minimum legal requirement to drive a car. There are plenty of inexperienced Drivers out there with Full Licences.

Hence why a re-testing method might improve competence.

Roadhawk

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Did you have to sit a test to get the Cycling Ireland License?

Is your driving licence covering classes of vehicles with two wheels? I'm thinking they'e quite different to four-wheeled ones.

There should be. Either a minimum age or (better) a minimum competency test. Kids need to be able to handle a bicycle safely, appreciate risks and take actions to manage them before they should be riding on roads or footpaths. Bicycles on road are not toys.

I don't think age should come into it. If you have a bike for the road whether its for commuting or leisure you should be subject to a test.

07Lapierre

Roadhawk wrote: »

Hence why a re-testing method might improve competence.

Agreed...But depends on the test. The last time I revered around a corner was during my Driving test in 1989!

As for hill starts..my car has one of these:

http://oemdtc.com/13458/new-model-service-information-2016-honda-hr-v/8

07Lapierre

Roadhawk wrote: »

I don't think age should come into it. If you have a bike for the road whether its for commuting or leisure you should be subject to a test.

You do know its illegal for anyone to cycle on the path? yes even a two year old is breaking the law by doing so!

L1011

07Lapierre wrote: »

Agreed...But depends on the test. The last time I revered around a corner was during my Driving test in 1989!

That is basically a method of them testing reverse parking for carparks with reduced risk of you taking out two innocent peoples cars... have you not done that for 26 years?

07Lapierre

L1011 wrote: »

That is basically a method of them testing reverse parking for carparks with reduced risk of you taking out two innocent peoples cars... have you not done that for 26 years?

I have yes... though I did scrap my car against a concrete pillar in the Ilac car park once! I had a full licence at the time too!

If they want to test a persons ability to park, why don't they bring you to a car park and get you to park in a parking space?

desertcircus

Roadhawk wrote: »

I don't think age should come into it. If you have a bike for the road whether its for commuting or leisure you should be subject to a test.

On the basis of what evidence? If you're proposing a major change to the law (and implicitly proposing the creation of a government agency for administration and issuing of cyclist licences), then presumably you have a fairly compelling evidence base for the proposal?

Roadhawk

07Lapierre wrote: »

You do know its illegal for anyone to cycle on the path? yes even a two year old is breaking the law by doing so!

Parks are provided for a reason. Roads are dangerous and right, cycling on a path is illegal.

Roadhawk

07Lapierre wrote: »

You do know its illegal for anyone to cycle on the path? yes even a two year old is breaking the law by doing so!

Parks are provided for a reason. Roads are dangerous and you are right, cycling on a path is illegal.

L1011

07Lapierre wrote: »

I have yes... though I did scrap my car against a concrete pillar in the Ilac car park once! I had a full licence at the time too!

If they want to test a persons ability to park, why don't they bring you to a car park and get you to park in a parking space?

As I said, reduce the risk of you wiping out two other peoples cars in the process.

Was told to reverse in to the space in the centre before the test so they get the impression you can do it to begin with - although your mammy could have done that for you!

Ilac has crap pillar spacings, designed for 1960s cars.

Roadhawk

desertcircus wrote: »

On the basis of what evidence? If you're proposing a major change to the law (and implicitly proposing the creation of a government agency for administration and issuing of cyclist licences), then presumably you have a fairly compelling evidence base for the proposal?

I'm not quite following what evidence your are looking for but as far as i can see there is no major change to law other than a few S.I.'s and no new department needed to administer the license. The Department of Transport is responsible for issuing the licenses for all other road vehicles so why would there be any difference for a bicycle?

07Lapierre

L1011 wrote: »

As I said, reduce the risk of you wiping out two other peoples cars in the process.

Was told to reverse in to the space in the centre before the test so they get the impression you can do it to begin with - although your mammy could have done that for you!

Ilac has crap pillar spacings, designed for 1960s cars.

Traffic cones, Empty car park? I'm not arguing with you..im just saying that the best way to test someone's parking ability is to test their parking ability. revering around a corner tests your ability to reverse around a corner

https://blogs.uw.edu/tsmedia/2015/05/08/ts-workers-practice-parking-lot-maneuvers-at-driver-training/

cython

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Did you have to sit a test to get the Cycling Ireland License?

Is your driving licence covering classes of vehicles with two wheels? I'm thinking they'e quite different to four-wheeled ones.

No test required for CI license. I know the question was not addressed to me, but you might not realise that the majority of category B licenses currently "in the wild" also actually cover category AM (previously M), which is a motorised cycle with an engine up to 50cc, so yes, my driving license covers such a vehicle, as do many others. This was only changed within the last 10 years, and possibly even the last 5.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

There should be. Either a minimum age or (better) a minimum competency test. Kids need to be able to handle a bicycle safely, appreciate risks and take actions to manage them before they should be riding on roads or footpaths. Bicycles on road are not toys.

Plenty of licensed drivers and motorcyclists (i.e. those that have passed tests) don't appear to be capable of what you are outlining, so I'm not sure why you suggest a test and licensing will suddenly add this for cyclists?

desertcircus

Roadhawk wrote: »

I'm not quite following what evidence your are looking for but as far as i can see there is no major change to law other than a few S.I.'s and no new department needed to administer the license. The Department of Transport is responsible for issuing the licenses for all other road vehicles so why would there be any difference for a bicycle?

To be clearer: have you any evidence that requiring cyclists to get licences will reduce road traffic accidents?

Roadhawk

cython wrote: »

No test required for CI license. I know the question was not addressed to me, but you might not realise that the majority of category B licenses currently "in the wild" also actually cover category AM (previously M), which is a motorised cycle with an engine up to 50cc, so yes, my driving license covers such a vehicle, as do many others. This was only changed within the last 10 years, and possibly even the last 5.



Plenty of licensed drivers and motorcyclists (i.e. those that have passed tests) don't appear to be capable of what you are outlining, so I'm not sure why you suggest a test and licensing will suddenly add this for cyclists?

Well you cant really argue the fact that a uniformed rule for all road users to have a test/license is bad. the suggestion of licensing is accountability.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

That seems a bit left field (based on the linked stats) and would be a shame to let a thread about general road education descend into a repeat of one on 'number plates for bikes'

Too late..!

cython

Roadhawk wrote: »

Well you cant really argue the fact that a uniformed rule for all road users to have a test/license is bad. the suggestion of licensing is accountability.

Ok, where do I sit my test before I apply for my pedestrian license so? :rolleyes:

EDIT: The above is deliberately a bit flippant, but realistically without if you are not looking for a uniform rule for all road users to be tested and licensed. And pedestrians are just as wont to do dumb things (and perhaps even more likely) as any other road user. The amount of lemmings I have that routinely cross in front of me when driving and cycling even though the traffic lights are green to traffic and have been for some time is astounding.

Roadhawk

desertcircus wrote: »

To be clearer: have you any evidence that requiring cyclists to get licences will reduce road traffic accidents?

Well it was previously mentioned that for Motorist RTAs the stats are:
driver error for 90%
pedestrian error for 6%
every other factor making up the remaining 4%

As cyclists are a very small ratio of road users in Ireland in comparison to motorists there are few RTAs including cyclists. My argument around the testing/licensing of cyclists is not to improve the RTA stats on their own but it is to have a level of education towards safety on the roads. Creating competent cyclists.

For such a low number of cyclists on the road why is there a stereotype towards them by other road users?

Roadhawk

cython wrote: »

Ok, where do I sit my test before I apply for my pedestrian license so? :rolleyes:

If you are a pedestrian you are not using a vehicle therefore you would not need a license.

cython

Roadhawk wrote: »

If you are a pedestrian you are not using a vehicle therefore you would not need a license.

But you didn't mention vehicles in your post.....

Roadhawk

cython wrote: »

But you didn't mention vehicles in your post.....

Apologies, I presumed there would be a certain level of common sense. The word pedestrian itself means "on foot" or "walker"

NiallBoo

Cycling ireland licenses aren't licenses in the same way that a driving license is, it's just a membership card
It proves membership of a club, of the national governing body for the sport and includes insurance when participating in club activities. It may also permit the holder to compete in races and be insured for such.

It has no relevance for someone commuting to work, generally getting around etc.
http://www.cyclingireland.ie/page/membership/types-of-membership

Danjamin1

L1011 wrote: »

That is basically a method of them testing reverse parking for carparks with reduced risk of you taking out two innocent peoples cars... have you not done that for 26 years?

Isn't that a separate maneuver altogether? Definitely remember being taught specifically how to do both in different circumstances.

magicbastarder

what i find funniest about the idea of needing a licence to get on a bicycle is imagining the reaction from the tabloids. they wouldn't know whether to shout 'FINALLY CYCLISTS GET THEIR COMEUPPANCE' or 'FACELESS BUREAUCRATS IMPOSE MORE NEEDLESS LAWS'.

07Lapierre

NiallBoo wrote: »

Cycling ireland licenses aren't licenses in the same way that a driving license is, it's just a membership card
It proves membership of a club, of the national governing body for the sport and includes insurance when participating in club activities. It may also permit the holder to compete in races and be insured for such.

It has no relevance for someone commuting to work, generally getting around etc.
http://www.cyclingireland.ie/page/membership/types-of-membership

Depends...most club cyclists don't "commute".... They are on a "training spin"

07Lapierre

07Lapierre wrote: »

As for hill starts..my car has one of these:

http://oemdtc.com/13458/new-model-service-information-2016-honda-hr-v/8

I don't think that has any bearing on the test. Much like being asked to drive with your hands on the wheel at the 8 o clock and 2 o clock positions (a position necessary prior to the likes of power steering, I'd imagine).

A reliance on technology doesn't mean you shouldn't need to learn how to control a car in general.

07Lapierre wrote: »

Traffic cones, Empty car park? I'm not arguing with you..im just saying that the best way to test someone's parking ability is to test their parking ability. revering around a corner tests your ability to reverse around a corner

https://blogs.uw.edu/tsmedia/2015/05/08/ts-workers-practice-parking-lot-maneuvers-at-driver-training/

I don't think it's really about parking the car. As you have to remain a set distance from the path, and tight to it for the entire procedure, i think it's more about your general ability to handle a car in reverse.

My dad lives in a cul-de-sac and often, if there are a few cars parked along it, you'd have to reverse the whole way out and reverse-turn into another road. I think it's that kinda carry on that the reverse around the corner is supposed to be emulating? (could well be wrong, though).

Del.Monte

km991148 wrote: »

Generally, ensuring more people were tested properly in the first place would be better - as far as I understand there are still a lot of people on Irish roads who have barely sat a test.

Having high number of driver errors leads me to think of there being a systematic or qualitative issue with the current testing framework. retesting every x years with sh!tty testing procedures or poor general education wont help much.

Additionally, enforcement of existing laws is pretty p!ss poor over here, making it easy for standards to slip (amber gambling in Dublin is rife, as is in town speeding - 60-70 in residential/50 zones is regular) - never mind all the usual stuff like middle lane drivers etc..





That seems a bit left field (based on the linked stats) and would be a shame to let a thread about general road education descend into a repeat of one on 'number plates for bikes'

It's worse than that, back in 1979 some 25,000 - 50,000 people were given full licences to clear the backlog of those waiting for a test. http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/car-talk/why-roads-are-safer-after-50-years-of-the-driving-test-30062291.html

Sylvester Barrett (the Fianna Fail Minister for the Environment was behind it - why am I not surprised) an Irish solution to an Irish problem. I'm pretty sure there was a repeat performance some years later but I can't remember when.

cython

Roadhawk wrote: »

Apologies, I presumed there would be a certain level of common sense. The word pedestrian itself means "on foot" or "walker"

Again, that does not exempt them from being a road user and if you look at my update to my earlier post, pedestrians are as apt to do dumb crap as anyone else. The meaning of the word pedestrian has no bearing on whether or not they need educating.

The only reason you see that interpretation as "common sense" is because it aligns with your viewpoint and the point you are trying to make. In reality there are those in all classes of road user who would appear to require further education (and pedestrians are arguably as bad as anyone, but perhaps you exempt them as it would inconvenience you to be suddenly subject to additional rigours, I don't know), and if you suggest licensing and testing as the approach to this then it should be universally inclusive.

Of course it is a ridiculous proposition but that is what happens when people make suggestions that haven't been fully thought out, and that have not considered the full implications of the claimed motivations.

07Lapierre

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think that has any bearing on the test. Much like being asked to drive with your hands on the wheel at the 8 o clock and 2 o clock positions (a position necessary prior to the likes of power steering, I'd imagine).

A reliance on technology doesn't mean you shouldn't need to learn how to control a car in general.




I don't think it's really about parking the car. As you have to remain a set distance from the path, and tight to it for the entire procedure, i think it's more about your general ability to handle a car in reverse.

My dad lives in a cul-de-sac and often, if there are a few cars parked along it, you'd have to reverse the whole way out and reverse-turn into another road. I think it's that kinda carry on that the reverse around the corner is supposed to be emulating? (could well be wrong, though).

Agreed... I think your right. The reversing around a corner is a general test in reversing ability and possibly skill at manovering a car in reverse.

As for all the new technology.. I hate them! Reversing sensors, electronic handbrakes, parallel parking assistance, etc., etc. These are all nice but they make drivers lazy and drivers become too dependent on these aids.

I think every driver should have to do their test in a very basic car without these electronics.

07Lapierre

07Lapierre wrote: »

Agreed... I think your right. The reversing around a corner is a general test in reversing ability and possibly skill at manovering a car in reverse.

As for all the new technology.. I hate them! Reversing sensors, electronic handbrakes, parallel parking assistance, etc., etc. These are all nice but they make drivers lazy and drivers become too dependent on these aids.

I think every driver should have to do their test in a very basic car without these electronics.

Well I actually find it interesting that you mention it (especially with regards to the likes of hill start assist and such, which are legitimate mechanical aids that assist on a fairly important aspect of the test).

Parking sensors I don't really mind too much as they do only really assist with parking (which as we know isn't really part of the test, anyway).

L1011

Danjamin1 wrote: »

Isn't that a separate maneuver altogether? Definitely remember being taught specifically how to do both in different circumstances.

Its (slightly) different but not tested.

07Lapierre wrote: »

Traffic cones, Empty car park? I'm not arguing with you..im just saying that the best way to test someone's parking ability is to test their parking ability. revering around a corner tests your ability to reverse around a corner

https://blogs.uw.edu/tsmedia/2015/05/08/ts-workers-practice-parking-lot-maneuvers-at-driver-training/

That'd require them to have actual facilities and not impose all parts of tests on the general public, that'd never do :eek:

The test centre I did my test in was in an area so flat the only hills were bridges, basically. Hill start was done on an imperceptible slant in a housing estate, because they had no proper facilities.

ceannair06

07Lapierre wrote: »

I wouldn't. I'm already registered and I already have TWO licences. I have a cycling Ireland Licence and a driving licence.

And still probably cycle through red lights, on pavement, wrong way down a one way street, through pedestrianised areas, over the bridges where cyclists are prohibited.

No ? Then you're the only one that doesn't.

Danjamin1

ceannair06 wrote: »

And still probably cycle through red lights, on pavement, wrong way down a one way street, through pedestrianised areas, over the bridges where cyclists are prohibited.

No ? Then you're the only one that doesn't.

ceannair, I've seen you on other threads spouting the same sh!te, what's with your vendetta against cyclists? A lot of cyclists, myself included obey the rules of the road and for the most part any cyclists on Boards sound like they fall into the same category so you're talking through your hole to the wrong people. Do you have anything constructive to add to the conversation or are you just interested in derailing it with another rant against cyclists?

Going Forward

Del.Monte wrote: »

Sylvester Barrett (the Fianna Fail Minister for the Environment was behind it - why am I not surprised) an Irish solution to an Irish problem. I'm pretty sure there was a repeat performance some years later but I can't remember when.

And what of it, in factual terms?

It would be very interesting to know how these drivers performed subsequently.

Were they involved in or did they cause proportionally far more accidents as a result of their lack of road training??

Surely there are official statistics available to back up the assertion that they are the worst group of drivers on our roads having never received instruction or passed a test.

I've never came across anything that shows that.

BTW I do think that educating schoolchildren about basic roadcraft is a very good idea.