Road User Education

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.

07Lapierre

Going Forward wrote: »

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

We used to teach road craft to kids...

https://youtu.be/lNO90cesLpo

I used to cycle from Raheny to Clontarf just to cycle around those little roads! I never did the classes, but I probably learnt as much on the cycle down the Malahide road!

Roadhawk

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.

That's a massive stereotype toward cyclists but i can relate to what you have mentioned. I suppose the implementation of fines is a direct result to tackle this problem. A cyclist will defend the right/entitlement to use the road which no other road user can contest but when it come to safety, there is a noticeable lack of it.

The same can be said for other motorists for going through red lights, on pavement, wrong way down a one way street, through pedestrianised areas but there is sufficient disciplinary measures to deter their actions.

Danjamin1

Roadhawk wrote: »

That's a massive stereotype toward cyclists but i can relate to what you have mentioned. I suppose the implementation of fines is a direct result to tackle this problem. A cyclist will defend the right/entitlement to use the road which no other road user can contest but when it come to safety, there is a noticeable lack of it.

The same can be said for other motorists for going through red lights, on pavement, wrong way down a one way street, through pedestrianised areas but there is sufficient disciplinary measures to deter their actions.

There's already fines & disciplinary procedures for both sets of road users, however they are not appropriately enforced, the result of which is countless road users (not limited to any one group) breaking red lights, going the wrong way on one way streets, using the pavement illegally, and so on. Blanket tarring of entire groups of road users based on poor behaviour from a few gets us nowhere.

Going Forward

Roadhawk wrote: »

That's a massive stereotype toward cyclists but i can relate to what you have mentioned. I suppose the implementation of fines is a direct result to tackle this problem. A cyclist will defend the right/entitlement to use the road which no other road user can contest but when it come to safety, there is a noticeable lack of it.

The same can be said for other motorists for going through red lights, on pavement, wrong way down a one way street, through pedestrianised areas but there is sufficient disciplinary measures to deter their actions.

The RSA has mounted various campaigns directed primarily at the motorist and lately the pedestrian.

The cyclist seems to be the forgotten road user in terms of direct campaigns; even something as simple as lighting at night in these winter months is never mentioned.

If the cyclist is continuously officially ignored, no wonder that they (some) feel that no rules actually apply to them.

What with the sharp uptake of cycling in recent years this should have been taken more seriously by the RSA IMO.

Then again, that has roots in the fact that the reason it was set up was because of the huge costs to the exchequer of road crashes, and the cyclist doesn't actually cause too many....

Macy0161

Roadhawk wrote: »

That's a massive stereotype toward cyclists but i can relate to what you have mentioned. I suppose the implementation of fines is a direct result to tackle this problem. A cyclist will defend the right/entitlement to use the road which no other road user can contest but when it come to safety, there is a noticeable lack of it.

The same can be said for other motorists for going through red lights, on pavement, wrong way down a one way street, through pedestrianised areas but there is sufficient disciplinary measures to deter their actions.

There were no new offences for cyclist - just a change to fixed penalty notices.

Can only laugh at the notion that there are sufficient disciplinary measures for motorists - in either car or on bicycle, I see more offences by motorists than I do by cyclists on my commute. This morning (in the car), I witnessed a van up driving up the pavement for over 100m to get to the top of queue to turn left, numerous red lights broken by motorised vehicles, numerous cars in bus lanes, numerous cars entering and parking in mandatory cycle lanes, motorbikes and scooters filtering up mandatory cycle lanes.

I guess it really shows that licencing and tests is not the answer for the perceived threat of cyclists, given it clearly has little impact on already licenced categories of road user. What we need is more enforcement across the board, not new licence categories or new laws (unless it's required for the roll out of more fixed enforcement cameras, particularly in urban areas, across the state).

Macy0161

Going Forward wrote: »

The RSA has mounted various campaigns directed primarily at the motorist and lately the pedestrian.

The cyclist seems to be the forgotten road user in terms of direct campaigns; even something as simple as lighting at night in these winter months is never mentioned.

If the cyclist is continuously officially ignored, no wonder that they (some) feel that no rules actually apply to them.

What with the sharp uptake of cycling in recent years this should have been taken more seriously by the RSA IMO.

Then again, that has roots in the fact that the reason it was set up was because of the huge costs to the exchequer of road crashes, and the cyclist doesn't actually cause too many....

Not sure I agree, it's just they're too focused on unnecessary, and certainly legally not required, things like Hi viz and helmets. They should be focused on lights and positioning.

However, one of things a lot of motorists seem to give out about is cyclists taking safe and defensive positions on the road - they want to be able to squeeze past, not be stuck behind a cyclist taking the lane so a motorist is forced into a safe overtake.

07Lapierre

Enforcement of the existing Rules of the Road. That and Better education for all road users.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97856108&postcount=14

monument

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.

Stop trolling.

-- moderator

Roadhawk

Danjamin1 wrote: »

There's already fines & disciplinary procedures for both sets of road users, however they are not appropriately enforced, the result of which is countless road users (not limited to any one group) breaking red lights, going the wrong way on one way streets, using the pavement illegally, and so on. Blanket tarring of entire groups of road users based on poor behaviour from a few gets us nowhere.

Its not really "Blanket tarring" road users on poor behaviour. Its more like having the ability to hold every road user accountable for their actions. Clearly only offenders would be effected so the percentage who comply will be grand.

I agree that there could be a better focus on enforcement but the Gards are having a hard enough time at the moment in terms of numbers. It might pick up in the near future.

Roadhawk

Going Forward wrote: »

The RSA has mounted various campaigns directed primarily at the motorist and lately the pedestrian.

The cyclist seems to be the forgotten road user in terms of direct campaigns; even something as simple as lighting at night in these winter months is never mentioned.

If the cyclist is continuously officially ignored, no wonder that they (some) feel that no rules actually apply to them.

What with the sharp uptake of cycling in recent years this should have been taken more seriously by the RSA IMO.

Then again, that has roots in the fact that the reason it was set up was because of the huge costs to the exchequer of road crashes, and the cyclist doesn't actually cause too many....

I would tend to disagree with you where you state, "The cyclist seems to be the forgotten road user in terms of direct campaigns". The RSA currently have the "Cycle Smart, Cycle Safe" campaign which includes all the right messages and uses a number of communication channels to reach its audience.

RSA document on road safety for cyclists(published in 2013):
http: //www. rsa. ie/Documents/Campaigns/Wrecked/Downloads/Cycle%20safety%20booklet.pdf