Road User Education

07Lapierre

GM228 wrote: »

Just to clarify, lighting up hours is not based on when streetlights are on, it's based on sunset/sunrise, see my post #144 for clarification.

Thanks I only mentioned street lights as I was replying to @Roadhawk...

Roadhawk

07Lapierre wrote: »

Thanks I only mentioned street lights as I was replying to @Roadhawk...

I stand corrected. Thanks GM228

Carawaystick

Roadhawk wrote: »

1) I would question what parent would let their 3-4 year old cycle on Irish roads. Too dangerous in my view. Perhaps a continuous road safety class is schools could be implemented for minors and a license could be issued after a certain amount of classes are complete? so many options.

There are plenty of roadways which are safe for anybody to cycle on. There are plenty more which aren't.
There are roads which have safe cycling infrastructure off the roadway for all
users to use.
3-4 year olds don't go to school.
3-4 year olds get taught by their primary educators, their parents, to cycle. Schools will never be able to do this.
Would you have 1-2 year olds having to attend walking classes before being allowed walk outside?

[QUOTE=Roadhawk;97911085
2) The same way a 17 year old motorist is held responsible? That's like asking how a cycling fine can be issued to an underage cyclist? [/QUOTE]
17 year old children are above the age of criminal responsibility, and can be held criminally responsible for their actions. 4 year old children cannot.

[QUOTE=Roadhawk;979110853) Pricing is a completely different ball game. I wouldn't have a clue? I presume an analysis would be the first step.[/QUOTE]

If I were to propose a reduction in liberty to provide some nebulous safety improvement, I'd think about this before typing or opening my mouth.
4) Again i wouldn't have a clue. No evidence from other countries but my suggestions are not a show stopper.

There are always pros and cons to a suggestion.[/QUOTE]
I'm wondering about where the pros are.

Sam Russell

07Lapierre wrote: »

I agree...I don't know the light up hours either. I look out the window..if its dark (or getting dark) I switch on my lights. Common sense.

Most cars I have owned tend to have the speedo designed so that the numbers are hard to read if it is dark enough to have the car lights on.

Alun

Sam Russell wrote: »

Most cars I have owned tend to have the speedo designed so that the numbers are hard to read if it is dark enough to have the car lights on.

Unfortunately many modern cars have instrument clusters that are either permanently illuminated, or else are digital screens, so again, are effectively permanently lit up. This causes lots of problems these days with DRL's which only light up at the front, and results in seeing a disturbingly large number of cars on the road with zero rear lights showing at night.

Sam Russell

I have noticed that myself. In my car, the lights come on automatically, so it is not a problem to me.

DLRs should include rear lights.

07Lapierre

Sam Russell wrote: »

Most cars I have owned tend to have the speedo designed so that the numbers are hard to read if it is dark enough to have the car lights on.

Interesting...you sure the brightness adjuster was not set too low?
( the centre button in the link below)

http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/attachments/test-drives-initial-ownership-reports/1398914d1438618394t-came-i-saw-we-conquered-our-hyundai-creta-1-6-diesel-sx-o-dsc_0029.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/test-drives-initial-ownership-reports/166726-came-i-saw-we-conquered-our-hyundai-creta-1-6-diesel-sx-o.html&h=548&w=802&tbnid=TawylnOjESUcvM:&docid=kRoiukRTrWBbkM&ei=rqZcVoWZH8HlPa3UhNgE&tbm=isch&ved=0ahUKEwiFqPHy87jJAhXBcg8KHS0qAUs4ZBAzCAsoCDAI

Sam Russell

07Lapierre wrote: »

Interesting...you sure the brightness adjuster was not set too low?
( the centre button in the link below)

http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/attachments/test-drives-initial-ownership-reports/1398914d1438618394t-came-i-saw-we-conquered-our-hyundai-creta-1-6-diesel-sx-o-dsc_0029.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/test-drives-initial-ownership-reports/166726-came-i-saw-we-conquered-our-hyundai-creta-1-6-diesel-sx-o.html&h=548&w=802&tbnid=TawylnOjESUcvM:&docid=kRoiukRTrWBbkM&ei=rqZcVoWZH8HlPa3UhNgE&tbm=isch&ved=0ahUKEwiFqPHy87jJAhXBcg8KHS0qAUs4ZBAzCAsoCDAI

I think I am talking about much older cars - pre-electronics.

07Lapierre

Pinch Flat wrote: »

For all those who are calling for licencing of cyclists, lets look at it another way - make it a priority that every school kid in the country is taught road craft and perhaps encouraging cycling use as a mandatory requirement before graduating to the car - then, everyone starts out as the most vulnerable road user and slowly but surely the attitude will change.

I agree with you and so does the UK insurance industry...

http://www.thebikecomesfirst.com/uk-cyclists-offered-cheaper-car-insurance-as-theyre-viewed-as-better-drivers/

Pinch Flat

07Lapierre wrote: »

I agree with you and so does the UK insurance industry...

http://www.thebikecomesfirst.com/uk-cyclists-offered-cheaper-car-insurance-as-theyre-viewed-as-better-drivers/

Hah yeah just got this on "stayin alive at 1.5's" face book page. Just beat me to it :pac:

Roadhawk

Carawaystick wrote: »

There are plenty of roadways which are safe for anybody to cycle on. There are plenty more which aren't.
There are roads which have safe cycling infrastructure off the roadway for all
users to use.
3-4 year olds don't go to school.
3-4 year olds get taught by their primary educators, their parents, to cycle. Schools will never be able to do this.
Would you have 1-2 year olds having to attend walking classes before being allowed walk outside?


17 year old children are above the age of criminal responsibility, and can be held criminally responsible for their actions. 4 year old children cannot.



If I were to propose a reduction in liberty to provide some nebulous safety improvement, I'd think about this before typing or opening my mouth.
4) Again i wouldn't have a clue. No evidence from other countries but my suggestions are not a show stopper.

There are always pros and cons to a suggestion.

I'm wondering about where the pros are.[/QUOTE]

Going by your approach to this topic I can see that we are on different side of the fence. Yes I understand that most people are initially thought how to ride a bike by their parents/guardian/other. My suggestion of testing is not around teaching someone how to cycle a bike. The same as a theory test for drivers has nothing to do with the practical side of driving. Instead it is based on the rules of the road and safety. If a bicycle is legally classed as a vehicle why are cyclists exempt from being tested like other vehicle users?

3-4 year olds don’t go to school...but when they do perhaps there could be some sort of safety class/test for cycling. What makes you think that schools point blank cannot support this suggestion?
I don't feel that the comment about the 1-2 year old has relevancy in what the discussion is.

Pros for testing Cyclists:
The cyclist learns the rules of the road and laws.
The cyclist learns safety factors set out by the RSA
The cyclist can be counted as equal on the roads (motorists can’t give out about them not knowing the rules etc.)

Cons for testing a Cyclists:
Its inconvenient for current cyclists.

haskellgeek

The other cons are who does this testing, what assement do the testers have to have, you can't use driving instuctors even motorbike ones would be different how do we conduct this test and where on the road using radios? Does the instuctor have to follow you on another bicycle /motorbike? What happens if I show up on my road bike and do like 40 kph can they keep up? Easy to do if its a short as the current driving test. Look at the current queue for driving licences how do we get all the current users of bikes tested what do we do in the mean time drive and cause even more car traffic? What about school users, who legally aren't allowed to drive, age etc? so many cons and unrealistic imo

haskellgeek

Also do we ban users,of bikes, who because of eyesight like a car licence must show up to your gp if your over 70 and complete another eye test and other stuff be physically fit to drive etc, and if you fail the gp cofiscates the bike/s too?

Roadhawk

haskellgeek wrote: »

The other cons are who does this testing, what assement do the testers have to have, you cant use driving instuctors even motorbike ones would be different how do we conduct this test and where on the road using radios? Does the instuctor have to follow you on another bicycle /motorbike? What happens if I show up on my road bike and do like 40 kph can they keep up? Easy to do if its a short as the current driving test. Look at the current queue for driving licences how do we get all the current users of bikes test what do we do in the mean time drive and cause even more car traffic? What about school users, who legally aren't allowed to drive, age etc? so many cons and unrealistic imo

Could you call these cons to testing? They look more like factors to be considered before implementing. Some very valid points

haskellgeek

Their cons beacuse you have no plan if say tommorrow there was mandtory testing for bicycles

Roadhawk

haskellgeek wrote: »

Their cons beacuse you have no plan if say tommorrow there was mandtory testing for bicycles

I would imagine that the Department of Transport would be the governing body involved with planning, etc. The planning is not exactly up to me. I still don't see how they are cons.

1) "what assessment do the testers have to have?"

A few questions around the rules of the road, RSA safety requirements and current legislation for cyclists are but some options.

2) "you can't use driving instructors even motorbike ones would be different how do we conduct this test and where on the road using radios? Does the instructor have to follow you on another bicycle /motorbike? What happens if I show up on my road bike and do like 40 kph can they keep up?"

The Gards complete a cycling test to enable them to use a Garda bike. Maybe the same type of testing could be adapted for the greater public?

3 "Look at the current queue for driving licences how do we get all the current users of bikes tested what do we do in the mean time drive and cause even more car traffic?"

Well you cant really not do something just because there is a queue. I'm sure the current cyclists could be tested over a certain period of time? I would personally love to the the increase of motorists changing their mode of transport to cycling as it would reduce traffic.

4. "What about school users, who legally aren't allowed to drive, age etc? so many cons and unrealistic imo"

I suppose this is a sticky one to pin down an exact age but why cant they be tested if it makes them safer/more competent road users?

endagibson

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.

Super. Good start. Hopes are high; this will be a productive thread.

Roadhawk wrote: »

...and cyclists should have licenses.

Ah bollocks! It's going to be one of those threads. Mostly rubbish with the odd worthwhile gem shining through like a very small needle in an enormous haystack.

L1011 wrote: »

RSA site has some claims along those lines, e.g. this *** URL that I can't even quote, can be found in post 6 ***

Hold it, I spoke too soon. We have a report, with figures. We can make good use of the analysis already done. The report is from 2008, but 7 year old data is better than a bunch of anecdotes.

ceannair06 wrote: »

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

Too late! Someone is already **** furiously at the thought of people of pedal cycles needing to have licences.

Mods: Can we please rename this thread? The majority of posts are not about "Road User Education" but rather discussing how best to inconvenience cyclists and get them off the road.

magicbastarder

you're talking about mandatory testing for bikes/cyclists to make cycling safer for them.
this would undoubtedly reduce the number of people cycling, and it's a clear pattern that what makes cycling safer is more people cycling. so a direct consequence of the testing would be in opposition to the intentions.

couple this with the fact that most cyclist fatalities (for other jurisdictions, certainly) are the driver's fault, and you may very well end up making cycling more dangerous (in both absolute and relative measures) for cyclists.
plus, you'd lose the benefit of the health improvements for the cyclists, which (as estimated by the BMJ) are 10 to 20 times more pronounced than the dangers introduced by cycling.

Carawaystick

Roadhawk wrote: »

Going by your approach to this topic I can see that we are on different side of the fence. Yes I understand that most people are initially thought how to ride a bike by their parents/guardian/other. My suggestion of testing is not around teaching someone how to cycle a bike. The same as a theory test for drivers has nothing to do with the practical side of driving. Instead it is based on the rules of the road and safety. If a bicycle is legally classed as a vehicle why are cyclists exempt from being tested like other vehicle users?

Bikes and cyclists are exempt from being tested like other vehicles and users, because it is both pointless and impractical to do so.
So far you have not outlined any benefit to testing people who want to cycle, that could be weighed against the huge cost of implementing testing.
There is no great safety benefit to testing people who cycle because there is no great safety problem with cycling.

Also please outline your well thought through plan for a person who lives in Strabane and wishes to cycle to Lifford. Would you have a test centre on the bridge?
What penalty would you impose for cycling without passing a test?

Roadhawk wrote: »

3-4 year olds don’t go to school...but when they do perhaps there could be some sort of safety class/test for cycling. What makes you think that schools point blank cannot support this suggestion?
I don't feel that the comment about the 1-2 year old has relevancy in what the discussion is.

So you would prevent someone who can cycle, from cycling for bureaucratic reasons?

Schools are underfunded at present. Primary teachers have no qualification in putting children through some legal qualification. I doubt any teacher would want to take the responsibility of assessing a child for their knowledge of the laws related to cycling because if they fail a child, it will cause resentment against them, grief from parents etc.
If they pass a child and Little Johnny crashes his bike, they'll get grief too.

My point about testing pedestrians is that your suggestion is so daft, It won't be long before some other person who hasn't bothered to think it through will suggest a walking test...

Roadhawk wrote: »

Pros for testing Cyclists:
The cyclist learns the rules of the road and laws.

How many cycling incidents are caused by cyclists not knowing the rules of the road? Because if this number is insignificant your whole idea is pointless.

Roadhawk wrote: »

The cyclist learns safety factors set out by the RSA

As I pointed out in the first page of the rsa's guide to cycle safety, there is a fundamental error. The rsa have also published safety guides for fixed charge penalties for cyclists with illegal reflectors on the image of a bike shown.
I'd put the rsa along with the marketing dept of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation who are

HHGttG wrote:

A bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Roadhawk wrote: »

The cyclist can be counted as equal on the roads (motorists can’t give out about them not knowing the rules etc.)

Have you any evidence that the attitudes of people who use motor vehicles would change if your magical testing regime happened?

07Lapierre

Carawaystick wrote: »

Have you any evidence that the attitudes of people who use motor vehicles would change if your magical testing regime happened?

I can confirm attitudes have not changed!

Apparently I'm the one and only cyclist who obeys the ROTR. I have the correct lights, the correct cycling kit AND I have excellent road craft skills! (Well, I tested myself and passed with flying colours! )

Even with all these "qualifications" I still get abuse from motorists!

roverrules

07Lapierre wrote: »

I can confirm attitudes have not changed!

Apparently I'm the one and only cyclist who obeys the ROTR. I have the correct lights, the correct cycling kit AND I have excellent road craft skills! (Well, I tested myself and passed with flying colours! )

Even with all these "qualifications" I still get abuse from motorists!

That's because self testing is notoriously difficult to prove you've done so without cheating.

monument

endagibson wrote: »

Ah bollocks!

Keep the bollocks out of it and tone it down.

-- moderator

magicbastarder

07Lapierre wrote: »

AND I have excellent road craft skills!

show us a video of you pulling an impressive wheelie or GTFO.

magicbastarder

monument wrote: »

Keep the bollocks out of it

i know you're not meant to quote/reply to these sort of posts, but this one deserves recognition.

Irish Steve

Road user education.

Nice try, but it's degenerated into so much of the usual rubbish, with the occasional good thought, so on that basis, I will throw some into the pot.

Driver education, that doesn't always mean specific "things", it can be something as simple as making drivers aware of their limitations, and where appropriate, providing either guidance, or maybe restrictions on their driving, depending on the findings.

So, what do I mean by that. The first thing I'd be changing if I could would be the present system of eyesight checks, where the requirements are minimal, and in a lot of cases ignored. I know from experience with elderly parents that there comes a time when they really are NOT safe to be driving, and that point cannot be determined by age, there are way too many other factors that are involved, and some drivers (for example) should NOT be allowed to drive at night, as their night vision is not good enough to be safe. This last point may well be something that is applicable to some younger driversas well, there's nothing in the present system that checks if a driver has an acceptable vision acuity in low level lighting, and there are some that really are not safe, ever.

I wouldn't just be checking eyesight in terms of accuracy, being able to see what's coming is not the only factor, there is also a requirement to be able to adequately determine the distance of an object, and the speed at which that object is approaching, I see way too many incidents where a driver will pull out of a side road in a manner that can best be described as inappropriate, or move into the carriageway on the motorway from the entry slip in a completely inappropriate manner that in some cases can only be described as downright dangerous.

Peripheral vision is also a factor that's ignored, being able to "see a car out of the corner of your eye" is sometimes the difference between an accident and a collision avoided, especially in high volume traffic on places like the M50, where things can and do change very rapidly.

Another useful check that should be carried out at some point, maybe on licence renewal, is a check on response times, how quickly does the driver react to an event, and that sort of test with "distractions" like a mobile ringing would be a VERY good wake up call for some of the younger generations that think texting while driving is safe.

A lot of schools now have a "transition year", where the emphasis is not on getting points for a leaving certificate, perhaps we should be devoting some time to some of the issues that surround driver education, not just about things like road safety and the rules of the road, but also some of the issues like why reflective jackets in a car are a good idea, how to safely change a tyre at night, and even basics like how to change a headlight bulb, which on the basis of observation is a very poorly developed skill in this country.

Yes, there are a few cars where changing a headlight bulb is a garage job, if I had my way, EU rules would change to require changing a headlight bulb to not require any tools, and to be possible in under 5 minutes, with similar requirements regarding no tools applying to other "important bulbs", like brake lights, or direction indicators. There's NO excuse for the number of vehicles on our roads with defective lights, other than simple laziness by the driver or owner, and I'd be even more hostile towards professional drivers who drive with defective lights, I see way too many taxis and trucks with defective lights, and while the odd one may have failed very recently, I'd put money on some of them being out for some while.

In the same vein, ALL commercial vehicles (including taxis and small vans) should be required by law to have a working hands free system for use with mobile phones, as should vehicles provided to an employee by a company for business use.

In the same way, some basic thoughts and driver education on what preparation to make in the event of having to drive in snow, or flooding conditions would not come amiss, the number of people that are clueless in bad weather is scary.

Then there are the issues that we all know about on the Motorways, lane discipline, passing on the wrong side, wrong lane use, inappropriate speeds, and that's too high AND too low, wrong use of lights, both main beams and fog lamps, the list is comprehensive.

Parking. Is that even the right word to use in some cases, the vehicle hasn't been abandoned, in that the owner has every intention of returning to the vehicle and using it again, but the manner in which some vehicles are left defies the normal definition of the word and meaning of parked, and what is it about the Irish psyche that people would rather park illegally than walk 25 metres from a legal and valid parking location.

And I've not mentioned cyclists yet, so here goes.

Like it or not, there ARE a significant number of cyclists who completely ignore red lights, they may well look to see if they can jump the junction without risk of being hit by a car, but that ignores the risk they present to pedestrians, they are very clearly of a mindset that says "feck ye and yer rules", but that might be because they've been trained by the education system to do exactly that as pedestrians, when a "school snake" of children is going to somewhere away from schools, (like the local parish church) due to a lack of parents and teachers to supervise the group if it splits, most teachers stand in the middle of the road, and positively encourage children to ignore the red light and keep crossing, even though the lights are now giving a clear green signal to the road traffic. It's no wonder that when they get older, those same kids do exactly the same when they get onto bikes, their role model teacher has positively encouraged such behaviour when they were young and impressionable.

I also have an issue with morons that ride the wrong way down one way streets at night in dark clothing and with no lights in the rain, I nearly killed one a long time ago on the Quays in Dublin, on a bend, so I was very close to the kerb and the next thing I knew was that I'd missed this bike by inches.

The lack of lights and appropriate reflective wear is a constant hassle, LED lights are starting to change that a little, as they work for so much longer on a set of batteries, but the lack of reflective bands or similar is not good.

My real hate though are the leisure cycle clubs that insist on riding 3 or 4 abreast on roads that are too winding and twisting to allow a motor vehicle to safely get past a group of maybe 20 or 30 bikes. Yes, they have a right to use the road, but when you've been stuck behind a group like this for maybe a mile or more, and you're likely to be stuck behind them for maybe another mile or 2, it becomes very annoying, especially if your own journey is not for fun, and not planned to allow for delays of this sort. The road from Ashbourne to Swords is a case in point, I don't use it on Saturdays at certain times, because I can guarantee to be delayed by a cycle club that uses the road regularly.

So, in a nutshell, there's more than a few items that could and should be a focus of attention if the RSA are interested, but if I am honest, I suspect that most of this list will never become a factor in enhanced road safety in Ireland, because the response from Joe Public would be too hostile to some of these issues.

And as for the possible requirement to take a "refresher test" as a result of some failures on the road, while it would in theory be a good thing to do, it's another issue that would never get TD approval, as they are all too interested in protecting their seats, and a move of this nature would threaten the car culture that is regrettably totally enmeshed in the culture of this country. I'd not have such a test as a repeat of the initial driving test, for an experienced driver, so much of the initial test does not recognise the skill set that an experienced driver should have developed, a "refresher test" should be more along the lines of the advanced driver tests that are available in other countries, which also provide a way for insurance to be lower, among other things, and those tests focus on different skills to the initial test.

Time to batten down the hatches, I suspect that some of this will generate a forest of responses, perhaps I should close by saying that my comments are based on over 40 years of driving experience in a number of countries, and in a range of vehicles, both private and commercial, and while I'm not going to pretend that I've never had an accident, the ones I've been responsible for can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and were not serious in terms of damage or consequences, so I'm reasonably happy that the skill set I have now is valid, and appropriate to modern driving conditions.

Carawaystick

Irish Steve wrote: »

And I've not mentioned cyclists yet, so here goes.

Like it or not, there ARE a significant number of cyclists who completely ignore red lights, they may well look to see if they can jump the junction without risk of being hit by a car, but that ignores the risk they present to pedestrians, they are very clearly of a mindset that says "feck ye and yer rules", but that might be because they've been trained by the education system to do exactly that as pedestrians, when a "school snake" of children is going to somewhere away from schools, (like the local parish church) due to a lack of parents and teachers to supervise the group if it splits, most teachers stand in the middle of the road, and positively encourage children to ignore the red light and keep crossing, even though the lights are now giving a clear green signal to the road traffic. It's no wonder that when they get older, those same kids do exactly the same when they get onto bikes, their role model teacher has positively encouraged such behaviour when they were young and impressionable.

So it's the church's fault cyclists break red lights?

Irish Steve wrote: »

My real hate though are the leisure cycle clubs that insist on riding 3 or 4 abreast on roads that are too winding and twisting to allow a motor vehicle to safely get past a group of maybe 20 or 30 bikes. Yes, they have a right to use the road, but when you've been stuck behind a group like this for maybe a mile or more, and you're likely to be stuck behind them for maybe another mile or 2, it becomes very annoying, especially if your own journey is not for fun, and not planned to allow for delays of this sort. The road from Ashbourne to Swords is a case in point, I don't use it on Saturdays at certain times, because I can guarantee to be delayed by a cycle club that uses the road regularly.

I don't use that road because arsehole drivers try overtaking me when they cannot see the way ahead is clear, and when mid-overtake they see an approaching car, the decide to pull in on the cyclist.

But your point shows that your poor planning causes you to hate other road users.

Very few cyclists cycle 3-4 abreast, but if you're looking at many pairs of 2 abreast cyclists from behind and at the right hand side of the lane, it will appear as if they are more than 2 abreast.
It would also be easier to pass a group of twenty 4 abreast cyclists as they would be only 5 bike lengths long, compared to if they were in single file say.

Roadhawk

Irish Steve wrote: »

Road user education.

Nice try, but it's degenerated into so much of the usual rubbish, with the occasional good thought, so on that basis, I will throw some into the pot.

Driver education, that doesn't always mean specific "things", it can be something as simple as making drivers aware of their limitations, and where appropriate, providing either guidance, or maybe restrictions on their driving, depending on the findings.

So, what do I mean by that. The first thing I'd be changing if I could would be the present system of eyesight checks, where the requirements are minimal, and in a lot of cases ignored. I know from experience with elderly parents that there comes a time when they really are NOT safe to be driving, and that point cannot be determined by age, there are way too many other factors that are involved, and some drivers (for example) should NOT be allowed to drive at night, as their night vision is not good enough to be safe. This last point may well be something that is applicable to some younger driversas well, there's nothing in the present system that checks if a driver has an acceptable vision acuity in low level lighting, and there are some that really are not safe, ever.

I wouldn't just be checking eyesight in terms of accuracy, being able to see what's coming is not the only factor, there is also a requirement to be able to adequately determine the distance of an object, and the speed at which that object is approaching, I see way too many incidents where a driver will pull out of a side road in a manner that can best be described as inappropriate, or move into the carriageway on the motorway from the entry slip in a completely inappropriate manner that in some cases can only be described as downright dangerous.

Peripheral vision is also a factor that's ignored, being able to "see a car out of the corner of your eye" is sometimes the difference between an accident and a collision avoided, especially in high volume traffic on places like the M50, where things can and do change very rapidly.

Another useful check that should be carried out at some point, maybe on licence renewal, is a check on response times, how quickly does the driver react to an event, and that sort of test with "distractions" like a mobile ringing would be a VERY good wake up call for some of the younger generations that think texting while driving is safe.

A lot of schools now have a "transition year", where the emphasis is not on getting points for a leaving certificate, perhaps we should be devoting some time to some of the issues that surround driver education, not just about things like road safety and the rules of the road, but also some of the issues like why reflective jackets in a car are a good idea, how to safely change a tyre at night, and even basics like how to change a headlight bulb, which on the basis of observation is a very poorly developed skill in this country.

Yes, there are a few cars where changing a headlight bulb is a garage job, if I had my way, EU rules would change to require changing a headlight bulb to not require any tools, and to be possible in under 5 minutes, with similar requirements regarding no tools applying to other "important bulbs", like brake lights, or direction indicators. There's NO excuse for the number of vehicles on our roads with defective lights, other than simple laziness by the driver or owner, and I'd be even more hostile towards professional drivers who drive with defective lights, I see way too many taxis and trucks with defective lights, and while the odd one may have failed very recently, I'd put money on some of them being out for some while.

In the same vein, ALL commercial vehicles (including taxis and small vans) should be required by law to have a working hands free system for use with mobile phones, as should vehicles provided to an employee by a company for business use.

In the same way, some basic thoughts and driver education on what preparation to make in the event of having to drive in snow, or flooding conditions would not come amiss, the number of people that are clueless in bad weather is scary.

Then there are the issues that we all know about on the Motorways, lane discipline, passing on the wrong side, wrong lane use, inappropriate speeds, and that's too high AND too low, wrong use of lights, both main beams and fog lamps, the list is comprehensive.

Parking. Is that even the right word to use in some cases, the vehicle hasn't been abandoned, in that the owner has every intention of returning to the vehicle and using it again, but the manner in which some vehicles are left defies the normal definition of the word and meaning of parked, and what is it about the Irish psyche that people would rather park illegally than walk 25 metres from a legal and valid parking location.

And I've not mentioned cyclists yet, so here goes.

Like it or not, there ARE a significant number of cyclists who completely ignore red lights, they may well look to see if they can jump the junction without risk of being hit by a car, but that ignores the risk they present to pedestrians, they are very clearly of a mindset that says "feck ye and yer rules", but that might be because they've been trained by the education system to do exactly that as pedestrians, when a "school snake" of children is going to somewhere away from schools, (like the local parish church) due to a lack of parents and teachers to supervise the group if it splits, most teachers stand in the middle of the road, and positively encourage children to ignore the red light and keep crossing, even though the lights are now giving a clear green signal to the road traffic. It's no wonder that when they get older, those same kids do exactly the same when they get onto bikes, their role model teacher has positively encouraged such behaviour when they were young and impressionable.

I also have an issue with morons that ride the wrong way down one way streets at night in dark clothing and with no lights in the rain, I nearly killed one a long time ago on the Quays in Dublin, on a bend, so I was very close to the kerb and the next thing I knew was that I'd missed this bike by inches.

The lack of lights and appropriate reflective wear is a constant hassle, LED lights are starting to change that a little, as they work for so much longer on a set of batteries, but the lack of reflective bands or similar is not good.

My real hate though are the leisure cycle clubs that insist on riding 3 or 4 abreast on roads that are too winding and twisting to allow a motor vehicle to safely get past a group of maybe 20 or 30 bikes. Yes, they have a right to use the road, but when you've been stuck behind a group like this for maybe a mile or more, and you're likely to be stuck behind them for maybe another mile or 2, it becomes very annoying, especially if your own journey is not for fun, and not planned to allow for delays of this sort. The road from Ashbourne to Swords is a case in point, I don't use it on Saturdays at certain times, because I can guarantee to be delayed by a cycle club that uses the road regularly.

So, in a nutshell, there's more than a few items that could and should be a focus of attention if the RSA are interested, but if I am honest, I suspect that most of this list will never become a factor in enhanced road safety in Ireland, because the response from Joe Public would be too hostile to some of these issues.

And as for the possible requirement to take a "refresher test" as a result of some failures on the road, while it would in theory be a good thing to do, it's another issue that would never get TD approval, as they are all too interested in protecting their seats, and a move of this nature would threaten the car culture that is regrettably totally enmeshed in the culture of this country. I'd not have such a test as a repeat of the initial driving test, for an experienced driver, so much of the initial test does not recognise the skill set that an experienced driver should have developed, a "refresher test" should be more along the lines of the advanced driver tests that are available in other countries, which also provide a way for insurance to be lower, among other things, and those tests focus on different skills to the initial test.

Time to batten down the hatches, I suspect that some of this will generate a forest of responses, perhaps I should close by saying that my comments are based on over 40 years of driving experience in a number of countries, and in a range of vehicles, both private and commercial, and while I'm not going to pretend that I've never had an accident, the ones I've been responsible for can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and were not serious in terms of damage or consequences, so I'm reasonably happy that the skill set I have now is valid, and appropriate to modern driving conditions.

I am in my 30’s and I have also been involved in one RTA. I was about 18 when it happened, nobody was hurt(except my wallet). The bottom line is that I was at fault. Over the years I have had many close calls but I feel that I have a very safe understanding of roads. Having an advanced drivers test is a brilliant idea. If it was recognised by insurance companies and the likes even better.

I thoroughly agree that there are a noticeable amount of cyclists breaking red lights, cycling on pathways and going around at night without any lighting on the front or rear. I suppose this is why a decision was made to issue fines for these offenses. I had previously promoted the benefits of basic testing for cyclists around safety and the rules of the road which stimulated every tom, dick and harry to have their say about how would toddlers be tested, how would it be financed and other ridiculous responses.

I also live in an area where “weekend Lance Armstrongs” take over the roads in large groups possibly of 20-30 on average. This nonsense of traveling more than 2 abreast proves how actively negligent they are considering most of them are usually on a club organised cycle. I can relate to your frustration when stuck behind a large group with a number of cars trailing behind you but don’t forget…they are entitled to use the road just as much as anyone else.

29.—(1) A pedal cyclist shall not, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists (and then only if to do so will not endanger other traffic or pedestrians) drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cycles driving abreast.

Im not sure if you have seen it, but there is another forum about cyclists and going the wrong way up a one way street - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057512659

It’s quite impressive how much safety is neglected in some of the posts. Some reply consists of how other countries in the around the world are so great because they have a good cycling network but its laughable that there is a perception that Ireland can reach the same ratio of bike usage as the likes of the Netherlands.

The bottom line is, regardless of how hostile that the Joe Public are, there will be more laws enforced for cyclists as well as motorists whether they like it or not. Im all for it.

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

I thoroughly agree that there are a noticeable amount of cyclists breaking red lights, cycling on pathways and going around at night without any lighting on the front or rear. I suppose this is why a decision was made to issue fines for these offenses. I had previously promoted the benefits of basic testing for cyclists around safety and the rules of the road which stimulated every tom, dick and harry to have their say about how would toddlers be tested, how would it be financed and other ridiculous responses.

i.e. ones you disagreed with. the objections are myriad. including (minor one) that it would kill the dublin bike scheme stone dead.
and that other countries have explicitly allowed cyclists to break red lights (in certain contexts) as they've realised it makes shag all difference.

maybe we should draw up a standardised list of reasons why bike testing (which implies licencing) is a bad idea.

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

i.e. ones you disagreed with. the objections are myriad. including (minor one) that it would kill the dublin bike scheme stone dead.
and that other countries have explicitly allowed cyclists to break red lights (in certain contexts) as they've realised it makes shag all difference.

maybe we should draw up a standardised list of reasons why bike testing (which implies licencing) is a bad idea.

Yes magicbastarder, i have disagreed with many other suggestions of why not to make our roads safer. The success of Dublin bike scheme does not really concern me. What does concern me is the amount of people who will be cycling outside of cycling lanes that will be provided in pedestrianised zones as soon after the Dublin City Development plan is complete (If it goes ahead)


Im not sure on how much you have read but the suggestion to license cyclists was solely suggested to hold the cyclists accountable for their actions if issued with a fine etc. I would be very surprised if you could give me a realistic reason why a cyclist should be allowed just hop on a bike and cycle on roads around the country without any understanding of the rules or safety that goes with using the road.

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

I would be very surprised if you could give me a realistic reason why a cyclist should be allowed just hop on a bike and cycle on roads around the country without any understanding of the rules or safety that goes with using the road.

because bicycles were (and are) one of the most democratising forms of transport ever invented, so to curtail the right to cycle in any way is not just counter-productive, but draconian to the point of being worrying.
(not to say i would not have a general issue with a judge banning someone specifically from cycling if circumstances justified it).

you'd be banning someone from cycling if they have not taken a test, even though you've not been able to quantify how dangerous they actually are.

there's a consistent undercurrent of 'well, car drivers should have to do it, so cyclists should have to do it too'. there's plenty of things car drivers have to do that cyclists don't, and there's no point in me listing out the reasons again.