Cyclists should be tested + licensed (mega-thread, topic not allow in other threads)

Carawaystick

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

there's a definite case for a common test to ensure a minimum level of training

This chestnut raises its head again

Who would pay for the testing?
How much would testing cost?
What is the cost of not having testing?
How would you test 3 year old cyclists?
What penalty would apply to untested 3 year old cyclists?
What time will testing begin on Sunday morning?
Would you have checks at every border crossing, to prevent cyclists coming from the uk without having passed a test?
Would you prevent tourists cycling before taking a test?
Would foreign participants in the Rás need a test?

_Kaiser_

Carawaystick wrote: »

This chestnut raises its head again

Who would pay for the testing?
How much would testing cost?
What is the cost of not having testing?
How would you test 3 year old cyclists?
What penalty would apply to untested 3 year old cyclists?
What time will testing begin on Sunday morning?
Would you have checks at every border crossing, to prevent cyclists coming from the uk without having passed a test?
Would you prevent tourists cycling before taking a test?
Would foreign participants in the Rás need a test?

OK I'll play along...

1. The end user
2. Same as the current driver theory test
3. Fine on conviction
4. Nonsense... how many 3 year olds are cycling down the quays, but for the sake of argument a 3 year old has no place cycling on a road anyway
5. As above
6. Same times as the driver theory test
7/8. Why not? They need a license to drive on the roads don't they? Again, would you expect a tourist to be able to safely cycle down the quays at rush hour without prior experience of our traffic laws/signage/language maybe?
The reality is of course that this doesn't happen (they get a bus, walk, taxi, LUAS) but again, I'll play along for the sake of argument
9. ??

In short, the notion that you can allow someone who maybe hasn't cycled since they were a kid out among rush hour traffic on a bike they picked up at Heuston or got for free through work and NOT expect problems is just ridiculous really. As I said before, not everyone is also a motorist and even if they are, there's a huge difference between how you interact with traffic in a car vs on a pushbike.

I see no reason they shouldn't have testing (if for no other reason than teaching them the importance of road safety) beyond the fact that the cyclist lobby don't want to accept any of the responsibility (which again is a fundamental cause behind this whole proposal - pandering to those who refuse to be mindful of their own safety and behavior) or indeed liability that equal access to the roads comes with - after all, you'd surely expect a motorist that hit you to be insured/licensed AND to be able to claim from that insurance wouldn't you?

Equally if a cyclist damages a car by being too close as they cut through the traffic, or veers out in front of a car without looking or hand signals there absolutely should be some sort of accountability and penalties there.

You can't have it both ways.

monument

Read the Commuting and Transport charter before posting in this thread.

-- moderator

magicbastarder

it's clear the testing regime is not rigorous enough for cyclists. sure look at the current hoo-ha over bradley wiggins and TUIs.

Grolschevik

When I was a kid in the North, we had cycling proficiency tests. Not mandatory as far as I remember, but all my friends did it as you got a nice little badge.

Instilled the 'rules of the road for cyclists' basics that I still remember today, even though I rarely cycle any more.

Could be worth doing it down here.

CramCycle

Make it part of the national school curriculum with a follow up in Junior cert. Make it for general road safety for pedestrians, cyclists and for the junior cert, include motorists.

Job done.

Next topic.

mickdw

Carawaystick wrote: »

This chestnut raises its head again

Who would pay for the testing?
How much would testing cost?
What is the cost of not having testing?
How would you test 3 year old cyclists?
What penalty would apply to untested 3 year old cyclists?
What time will testing begin on Sunday morning?
Would you have checks at every border crossing, to prevent cyclists coming from the uk without having passed a test?
Would you prevent tourists cycling before taking a test?
Would foreign participants in the Rás need a test?

I would be all for mandatory testing and insurance also.
In response to the above.
Cyclist should fund test and training costs.
Cycling without mandatory licence and insurance should result in fine.
Only cycling on public roads would require licensing. Children accompanied by licenced adult would not require test. Test could be brought into school curriculum so that everyone has the basic training in first year in secondary school.
For a start, cyclists legal in home country could be deemed legal here so foreign residents would only need to meet requirements of home country in terms of learning and licencing.
Participants in road races etc would be taking part in a controlled event and as such exempt from licencing law.
Cyclist identifier displayed in an agreed manner on rear of compulsory high visibility vest.

Chivito550

Requiring a licence to cycle a bike? Another nail in the coffin of the general health of this nation.

We want to reduce obesity, not increase it.

magicbastarder

mickdw wrote: »

For a start, cyclists legal in home country could be deemed legal here so foreign residents would only need to meet requirements of home country in terms of learning and licencing.

this line renders your entire argument null.
we'd be the first country in the world to introduce such legislation (i wonder why?) so you'd immediately exempt anyone born in another country from the law.

how much do you think such insurance would take in vs. how much the scheme would cost to administer vs. the effect on the numbers of people abandoning bikes for cars and public transport (which are generally a net drain on the public purse)?

AltAccount

Carawaystick wrote: »

This chestnut raises its head again

Who would pay for the testing?
How much would testing cost?
What is the cost of not having testing?
How would you test 3 year old cyclists?
What penalty would apply to untested 3 year old cyclists?
What time will testing begin on Sunday morning?
Would you have checks at every border crossing, to prevent cyclists coming from the uk without having passed a test?
Would you prevent tourists cycling before taking a test?
Would foreign participants in the Rás need a test?

Would anyone with a valid driver's licence be exempt from this test? Surely the curriculum etc would be basically the same?

Would we be adding an additional category to the standard driver's licence?
e.g. When you pass your driving test, they automatically add tractor (category W) and bicycle (category ?) to your licence.
If you do the cycling test as a 14 year old, you get a driver's licence with bicycle ticked, and then when you pass the driving test a few years later, they add cat B & W to the licence.

PeadarCo

AltAccount wrote:

Would anyone with a valid driver's licence be exempt from this test? Surely the curriculum etc would be basically the same?

Why is a license for cyclists needed? You didn't need a drivers for a car until 50+ years after the car was invented. The reason it was brought in was due to the deaths and overall damage bad driving did and does. Its a solution looking for a problem.

CramCycle

mickdw wrote: »

Cyclist should fund test and training costs.

Training and insurance were introduced for motorists because the cost of motoring accidents to the state are phenomenal. This is simply untrue with cyclists. It would cost more to set up then they will ever cost.

Children accompanied by licenced adult would not require test.

So my son needs to be accompanied to school or his friends house that is no more than a minute from our door?!? Remove any independence I have instilled in him. Talk about either making cycling unattractive for parents or molly cuddling the f*ck out of the next generation.

Test could be brought into school curriculum so that everyone has the basic training in first year in secondary school.

I agree with mandatory training, for everyone in regards road safety. Should be mandatory for every person U18, hopefully it will reduce some of the stupidity we see across all road user groups over time.

For a start, cyclists legal in home country could be deemed legal here so foreign residents would only need to meet requirements of home country in terms of learning and licencing.

LOL. I am from the UK/france/Germany/wherever. There is no requirement to carry ID or do a test. Talk about making it an exercise in wasting garda time and resources.

on rear of compulsory high visibility vest.

So I can't wear a backpack. I have to wear a piece of clothing known to give a false sense of security and can be easily faked. Awesome plan.

AltAccount

PeadarCo wrote: »

Why is a license for cyclists needed? You didn't need a drivers for a car until 50+ years after the car was invented. The reason it was brought in was due to the deaths and overall damage bad driving did and does. Its a solution looking for a problem.

Roads were the wild west back when licences weren't needed, and the roads were a lot quieter too. Now we have huge volumes of traffic and it's far more important for everyone to operate by the same rules to minimise "vehicle overlap"...

I'm just wondering if there's a special level of information/testing required for a cycling competency test, or could the existing testing infrastructure be leveraged.

prinzeugen

AltAccount wrote: »

Would anyone with a valid driver's licence be exempt from this test? Surely the curriculum etc would be basically the same?

Would we be adding an additional category to the standard driver's licence?
e.g. When you pass your driving test, they automatically add tractor (category W) and bicycle (category ?) to your licence.
If you do the cycling test as a 14 year old, you get a driver's licence with bicycle ticked, and then when you pass the driving test a few years later, they add cat B & W to the licence.

No. You don't get a moped or motorbike licence when you pass the car test.

A cycling category should be separate.

99% of cyclists would fail a test if it is as strict as the motorbike test.

Don't look over your shoulder? Fail.

mickdw

CramCycle wrote: »

Training and insurance were introduced for motorists because the cost of motoring accidents to the state are phenomenal. This is simply untrue with cyclists. It would cost more to set up then they will ever cost.
So my son needs to be accompanied to school or his friends house that is no more than a minute from our door?!? Remove any independence I have instilled in him. Talk about either making cycling unattractive for parents or molly cuddling the f*ck out of the next generation.
I agree with mandatory training, for everyone in regards road safety. Should be mandatory for every person U18, hopefully it will reduce some of the stupidity we see across all road user groups over time.
LOL. I am from the UK/france/Germany/wherever. There is no requirement to carry ID or do a test. Talk about making it an exercise in wasting garda time and resources.
So I can't wear a backpack. I have to wear a piece of clothing known to give a false sense of security and can be easily faked. Awesome plan.

I'm not really making reference to cost of accidents to the state. I believe insurance should be in place to prevent cyclists peddling away from their responsibilities when they cause damage to property particularly in city traffic where they cannot be chased.
If the training was undertaken at the same age as kids are deemed to be safe on their own, I don't see any knock on issues re freedom.
I don't get what you are saying re tourists. cars for example must be legal in home country to drive here.
I guess consideration could be given to backpacks displaying the ID. Its amazing to me that you wouldn't think that a compulsory hi viz top is a good idea for a vulnerable road user.
Car reg can be easily faked. I have not heard anyone say we should get rid of them.
Opposition to this clearly comes from the mindset of the cyclist who believes they can do as they wish on the road. My point is that when they are sharing the road with expensive property and the owners of the vehicles are paying an arm and a leg for the privilege, then it's not too much to ask that the cyclist is identifiable and able to pay for damage caused.

endagibson

Anyone got any plans for dealing with the hordes of machine gun wielding unicorns in Dublin?

Just curious, since we're looking for solutions to problems that don't exist.

AltAccount

prinzeugen wrote: »

99% of cyclists would fail a test if it is as strict as the motorbike test.

By the same logic, probably 99% of drivers would fail the motorbike test too, and cars are arguably FAR more lethal/dangerous to everyone (except the driver) than motorbikes or bikes.

On that basis, it doesn't really make sense that the motorbike test is so much harder than the car test, or that you'd make the cycling test as hard as the motorbike test rather than as "easy" as the car test.

magicbastarder

mickdw wrote: »

I believe insurance should be in place to prevent cyclists peddling away from their responsibilities when they cause damage to property particularly in city traffic where they cannot be chased.

what does insurance do to prevent cyclists from doing this? and please quantify how much of a problem this is.
i started cycling on public roads (to school) when i was twelve. in the 28 years since, the most damage i've done to a car is cracked a taillight, or averaged out over the years, averaged no more thn €5 a year in damage. which would have been handled outside insurance anyway if it had been required.

what incidents are you aware of where insurance would have been required to cover the damage?

magicbastarder

mickdw wrote: »

My point is that when they are sharing the road with expensive property and the owners of the vehicles are paying an arm and a leg for the privilege, then it's not too much to ask that the cyclist is identifiable and able to pay for damage caused.

this is faintly absurd. because some people are paying lots of money to do something, the people *not* paying the money, and doing a tiny fraction of the damage, should be forced to carry identification and insurance?
the people doing the damage are other people who have shelled out for cars, not the cyclists.

a cyclist - combined weight of bike and rider of 100kg - doing 30km/h - has a kinetic energy of about 3,500J.
my car - an octavia - with me in it, and with half a tank of fuel, weighs 1500kg, has the same kinetic energy at 7km/h.
if you use momentum to compare, it's even more stark. the same cyclist at 30km/h has the same momentum as the octavia doing 2km/h.

can you imagine if the speed limit in the cities was 7km/h? that'd be gas.

Mrs OBumble

magicbastarder wrote: »

what incidents are you aware of where insurance would have been required to cover the damage?

I've been the owner of a legally-parked car which had approx E2000 (in today's terms) worth of panel damage done by a cyclist who came down a hill, failed to give way and crashed into it. Somehow the cyclist wasn't badly hurt - and for whatever reason he decided to leave a note under my windscreen with his contact details. Sitting with the agent from my insurance company when they rang him looking for compensation was priceless.




I totally support the proposal: all people who operate vehicles on public roads should have to prove that they're capable of doing so, and that they've got adequate insurance to pay for whatever damage they might cause.

magicbastarder

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I've been the owner of a legally-parked car which had approx E2000 (in today's terms) worth of panel damage done by a cyclist

what panels?

jimmycrackcorm

CramCycle wrote: »

Make it part of the national school curriculum with a follow up in Junior cert. Make it for general road safety for pedestrians, cyclists and for the junior cert, include motorists.

Job done.

Next topic.

In the 70's in primary school I took part in a programme on cycling safety where they had marked lanes out on the taught us the basic rules. We were alos taught the green cross code - familiar to anyone who remembers wanderly wagon.

I also think the OP's point could be vaild for any pedestrians who drink.

mickdw

magicbastarder wrote: »

what does insurance do to prevent cyclists from doing this? and please quantify how much of a problem this is.
i started cycling on public roads (to school) when i was twelve. in the 28 years since, the most damage i've done to a car is cracked a taillight, or averaged out over the years, averaged no more thn €5 a year in damage. which would have been handled outside insurance anyway if it had been required.

what incidents are you aware of where insurance would have been required to cover the damage?

Insurance and identification means that a cyclist who attempts to cycle off from accident can be traced and the damaged party compensated for damage.
So did you pay for that taillight?
I've personally witnessed a cyclist breaking a red light and heavily hitting the drivers door of a taxi, destroying the door. I've also seen a cyclist kick the side of a dublin bus for no good reason, scratch the rear corner of my car while I sat in traffic and also I remember a car hitting another car in other lane to avoid a cyclist who fell off its path.

TheChizler

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I've been the owner of a legally-parked car which had approx E2000 (in today's terms) worth of panel damage done by a cyclist who came down a hill, failed to give way and crashed into it. Somehow the cyclist wasn't badly hurt - and for whatever reason he decided to leave a note under my windscreen with his contact details. Sitting with the agent from my insurance company when they rang him looking for compensation was priceless.

So it all worked out well in the end without any insurance needed?

mickdw

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is faintly absurd. because some people are paying lots of money to do something, the people *not* paying the money, and doing a tiny fraction of the damage, should be forced to carry identification and insurance?
the people doing the damage are other people who have shelled out for cars, not the cyclists.

a cyclist - combined weight of bike and rider of 100kg - doing 30km/h - has a kinetic energy of about 3,500J.
my car - an octavia - with me in it, and with half a tank of fuel, weighs 1500kg, has the same kinetic energy at 7km/h.
if you use momentum to compare, it's even more stark. the same cyclist at 30km/h has the same momentum as the octavia doing 2km/h.

can you imagine if the speed limit in the cities was 7km/h? that'd be gas.

Damage is damage and people need to be traceable.
Following your logic, are you ok with random cars rubbing off the side of your octavia at a speed of say 5 km/h?
A car rubs up the side of your car scratching panels...... That is ok?
Damage the wing mirror and drive off....... That is ok?

luckily the car has a unique identifier that will get you out of trouble if the driver was to give you 2 fingers as he or she scratches along your car and takes off up the road.

prinzeugen

AltAccount wrote: »

By the same logic, probably 99% of drivers would fail the motorbike test too, and cars are arguably FAR more lethal/dangerous to everyone (except the driver) than motorbikes or bikes.

On that basis, it doesn't really make sense that the motorbike test is so much harder than the car test, or that you'd make the cycling test as hard as the motorbike test rather than as "easy" as the car test.

I agree. At the moment, a car driver is not required to look over the shoulder in addition to checking the mirrors during the test. Its called the life saver for a reason.

Did advanced motorbike training years ago and the guy would ask you to look over your shoulder. Few seconds later they would ask what make and colour the car behind you was.. Its not as easy as you think!

Everyone should have a test or some sort of training.

Its amazing what it does for your general situational awareness.

Subcomandante Marcos

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I've been the owner of a legally-parked car which had approx E2000 (in today's terms) worth of panel damage done by a cyclist who came down a hill, failed to give way and crashed into it. Somehow the cyclist wasn't badly hurt - and for whatever reason he decided to leave a note under my windscreen with his contact details. Sitting with the agent from my insurance company when they rang him looking for compensation was priceless.




I totally support the proposal: all people who operate vehicles on public roads should have to prove that they're capable of doing so, and that they've got adequate insurance to pay for whatever damage they might cause.

How does one give way to a parked car?

magicbastarder

mickdw wrote: »

Damage is damage and people need to be traceable.
Following your logic, are you ok with random cars rubbing off the side of your octavia at a speed of say 5 km/h?
A car rubs up the side of your car scratching panels...... That is ok?
Damage the wing mirror and drive off....... That is ok?

i obviously didn't explain myself well enough. i was getting at the level of insurance we'd need for cars (not including fire and theft, etc.) if cars only travelled at a couple of km/h.

magicbastarder

mickdw wrote: »

Insurance and identification means that a cyclist who attempts to cycle off from accident can be traced and the damaged party compensated for damage.
So did you pay for that taillight?

i didn't; the driver (it was a taxi) helped me load the bike into the boot, and was going to drive me to the mater, but i asked him to drop me home (which was nearer) so i could ring for a relative to bring me to the VHI clinic.

he drove off without swapping details, but he certainly knew where i lived. maybe he was just glad i managed not to bleed all over the inside of his car.

CramCycle

mickdw wrote: »

Insurance and identification means that a cyclist who attempts to cycle off from accident can be traced and the damaged party compensated for damage.

Having had several incidents where cars have driven off, it does not seem to make a huge difference. Gardai, insurance and all others seemed not to give a sh1t.

I've personally witnessed a cyclist breaking a red light and heavily hitting the drivers door of a taxi, destroying the door. I've also seen a cyclist kick the side of a dublin bus for no good reason, scratch the rear corner of my car while I sat in traffic and also I remember a car hitting another car in other lane to avoid a cyclist who fell off its path.

Great anecdotes, obvio5proves a huge problem.

mickdw wrote: »

Damage is damage and people need to be traceable.
Following your logic, are you ok with random cars rubbing off the side of your octavia at a speed of say 5 km/h?
A car rubs up the side of your car scratching panels...... That is ok?
Damage the wing mirror and drive off....... That is ok?

Happens all the time in car parks. Sitting in my car the other day when a neighbouring car slammed their door into me with enough force to rock the car. Decent damage done to the panel. Kid in the car laughed. On camera in the SC. Witnessed in the act and they drove off when I tried to get their attention. They did not care, Gardai did not care and their insurance just said that it did not happen.

prinzeugen wrote: »

I agree. At the moment, a car driver is not required to look over the shoulder in addition to checking the mirrors during the test. Its called the life saver for a reason.

I was taught to cover blind spots, surprised this is no longer required.

John_C

I think it's a good idea. I'd also make it necessary to hold a cycle license for maybe 2 years before applying for a driving license.

Thargor

There really is nothing more backwards or wrongheaded than the few people on this forum you regularly see calling for registration of cyclists, you dont see it on any other forum really. Someone always inevitably posts the kinetic energy and momentum figures plus fatality rates of cars vs bikes aswell and it just gets ignored.

Id like to see the obesity and general fitness figures for the few that do it, I think they'd be very revealing.

magicbastarder

Thargor wrote: »

Someone always inevitably posts the kinetic energy and momentum figures

i like to be useful.

regardless of the ins and outs of the debate, it's not going to happen. cycling rates would plummet, the dublin bikes scheme would die a near instant death, and the cost to the exchequer in providing extra public and private transport facilities, plus the loss in general health of the population means the idea is a dead duck.

for all the talk of the problem cyclists cause on the road, no-one seems to be able to quantify it.

seamus

magicbastarder wrote: »

for all the talk of the problem cyclists cause on the road, no-one seems to be able to quantify it.

This is it. Whenever you ask someone to quantify this alleged problem, all you get are anecdotes about how someone's best friend's granny got knocked over by a cyclist who was doing 90mph in a 20 zone while simultaneously breaking 5 red lights and swinging a chainsaw over their head. And then she got up and went home but had a big bruise on her hip.

If the total 3rd party damage caused by all cyclists in a year exceeded half a million euro, I'd eat my helmet.

endagibson

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

...on a bike they [...] got for free through work...

Please post details of this in Bargain Alerts.

Vic_08

seamus wrote: »

This is it. Whenever you ask someone to quantify this alleged problem, all you get are anecdotes about how someone's best friend's granny got knocked over by a cyclist ...

All you get are anecdotes because there are no records or statistics available. That doesn't mean there is not a significant number of accidents with bike riders at fault.

I've been injured twice by others on the road, once on a bike where a twat in a van knocked me off and drove off and the other time when a cyclist blasted through a pedestrian crossing and hit me.

I've also had 2 injury claims from bus passengers while driving, both were caused by other road users. First was a car driver who pulled out in front of the bus and stamped on the brakes while road raging with another motorist, the other a cyclist barrelling through a red light. On both occasions I avoided colliding with the other party but a passenger put in an injury claim. For the car at least licence plate meant they could be traced, for the cyclist no such possibility existed.


A perfect example: Psycholist road rages with van driver, commits criminal damage, starts a fight where he is clearly the aggressor then tries to flee the scene knowing he won't be easily traced.

I don't have an answer to how to solve the issue but it is just the usual pro-cyclist BS to deny that a significant % cyclists act in a very poor manner in part because they know the chance of them being held accountable for any damage or criminality they engage in is near zero.

PeadarCo

Vic_08 wrote:

All you get are anecdotes because there are no records or statistics available. That doesn't mean there is not a significant number of accidents with bike riders at fault.

If there was a significant number of serious accidents caused by cyclists we would have statistics. Serious accidents generally result in a hospital appointment in A&E. They'd notice if cyclists were causing a large/significant number of admissions.

Nobody has said cyclists don't cause accidents. The argument is that they don't cause enough to warrant insurance and the additional negative affects arising from the reduction in cycling numbers.

Mrs OBumble

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

How does one give way to a parked car?

One gives way at a t-junction. Or one doesn't, and instead crosses both lanes (very luckily for them there was no traffic coming either way) and ploughs into whatever vehicle is parked there. (The guy was lucky: if no one was parked there he would have gone straight into a concrete wall, which would have had less give in it than the panels of my car.)

TheChizler wrote: »

So it all worked out well in the end without any insurance needed?

Are you having a laugh? The guy claimed not to have any money so my insurance company had to pay E2k, and I lost my no claims bonus. Hardly "worked out well" - except for the lucky "bicycle user" who faced no consequences for his behaviour at all. (The country where it happened has a universal employer-funded accident treatment scheme, so he didn't even face any medical bills.)

magicbastarder wrote: »

what panels?

From memory something like roof, bonnet, drivers door, front right - it was a while ago so I'm not 100% on this. The car had to be removed by tow-truck.

PeadarCo wrote: »

Nobody has said cyclists don't cause accidents. The argument is that they don't cause enough to warrant insurance and the additional negative affects arising from the reduction in cycling numbers.

So the rest of us have to pay for the consequences of their mis-behaviour through our car and health insurance premiums. Hardly fair.

TheChizler

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Are you having a laugh? The guy claimed not to have any money so my insurance company had to pay E2k, and I lost my no claims bonus. Hardly "worked out well" - except for the lucky "bicycle user" who faced no consequences for his behaviour at all. (The country where it happened has a universal employer-funded accident treatment scheme, so he didn't even face any medical bills.)

Well you finished the story giving the impression that you enjoyed calling them with the insurance guy.

LuckyLloyd

Chivito550 wrote: »

Requiring a licence to cycle a bike? Another nail in the coffin of the general health of this nation.

We want to reduce obesity, not increase it.

There are a million forms of exercise.

PeadarCo

Mrs OBumble wrote:

So the rest of us have to pay for the consequences of their mis-behaviour through our car and health insurance premiums. Hardly fair.

One most cyclists are car drivers. Two as has already been pointed out even if your in a minor accident with another car driver there's no guarantee you will get their insurance details if they drive away quickly

Three you pay for alot of things that aren't your fault. You do realise that we spend alot of money tidying people up in hospital due to fights aggravated by drink. Your paying for that in both your health insurance and taxes. I assume you'll be calling for everybody who drinks alcohol to take out insurance to pay for the damage they cause.

And while we're at why shouldn't everyone be made take out personal insurance. Sure you know you could bump into someone on the street and knock them over while walking. Sure they might have get a bruise and go to hospital. If everybody that a unique id number tattooed to their neck it would very easy to identify they person who tapped you on the shoulder.(Just to say I'm not saying your advocating this. I'm just extending your logic about the need for insurance. In terms of drink related assaults as far as I know they do monitor that stuff in A&Es unlike bike accidents)

magicbastarder

"Transport minister Shane Ross has included a goal of “fewer single occupancy vehicles and more commuters walking and cycling” as part of his department’s Statement of Strategy 2016 – 2019."
http://irishcycle.com/2016/12/26/fewer-single-occupancy-cars-more-cycling-goal-in-rosss-new-strategy/

again, meeting these goals does not dovetail well with the concept of requiring insurance and a licence.

the notion that my 70 year old aunt would be breaking the law by cycling to the shops without first getting a licence is farcical.

Thargor

Vic_08 wrote: »

All you get are anecdotes because there are no records or statistics available. That doesn't mean there is not a significant number of accidents with bike riders at fault.

I've been injured twice by others on the road, once on a bike where a twat in a van knocked me off and drove off and the other time when a cyclist blasted through a pedestrian crossing and hit me.

I've also had 2 injury claims from bus passengers while driving, both were caused by other road users. First was a car driver who pulled out in front of the bus and stamped on the brakes while road raging with another motorist, the other a cyclist barrelling through a red light. On both occasions I avoided colliding with the other party but a passenger put in an injury claim. For the car at least licence plate meant they could be traced, for the cyclist no such possibility existed.


A perfect example: Psycholist road rages with van driver, commits criminal damage, starts a fight where he is clearly the aggressor then tries to flee the scene knowing he won't be easily traced.

I don't have an answer to how to solve the issue but it is just the usual pro-cyclist BS to deny that a significant % cyclists act in a very poor manner in part because they know the chance of them being held accountable for any damage or criminality they engage in is near zero.

So what? What in any of that load of waffle justifies banning cyclists from the road unless they're tested and licensed like you're proposing? You're being asked for actual evidence that its a problem that requires the vast expense and inconvenience that you're proposing, not to mention the international ridicule and reputational damage Ireland would suffer for it.

I could write a few paragraphs of anecdotal gibberish about all the people who've been injured by not tying their shoelaces properly and post a Daily Mail video of someone tripping on their laces, does this anecdotal crap mean we need to start licencing and testing anyone who wants to use shoelaces?

People always pretend its about road safety but they'd never spend this much time whining about something that actually kills and maims people like farm or water safety, its purely a cover for this weird anti-cycling Jeremy Clarkson crap you get on boards.ie, as I said it would be interesting to get a look at the obesity figures for the people who keep bringing it up.

magicbastarder

Thargor wrote: »

this weird anti-cycling Jeremy Clarkson crap you get on boards.ie

to be fair, this is not specific to boards.ie.

Mrs OBumble

TheChizler wrote: »

Well you finished the story giving the impression that you enjoyed calling them with the insurance guy.

I gained a new appreciation and respect for the professionalism and tenacity of people who work in insurance companies. And I've never complained about paying an insurance premium since I watched that woman at work. Not the same as "enjoyed".

PeadarCo wrote: »

You do realise that we spend alot of money tidying people up in hospital due to fights aggravated by drink. Your paying for that in both your health insurance and taxes. I assume you'll be calling for everybody who drinks alcohol to take out insurance to pay for the damage they cause.

And while we're at why shouldn't everyone be made take out personal insurance. Sure you know you could bump into someone on the street and knock them over while walking. Sure they might have get a bruise and go to hospital. If everybody that a unique id number tattooed to their neck it would very easy to identify they person who tapped you on the shoulder.(Just to say I'm not saying your advocating this. I'm just extending your logic about the need for insurance. In terms of drink related assaults as far as I know they do monitor that stuff in A&Es unlike bike accidents)

It's a poor comparison: VAT and excise tax on alcohol is levied effectively on a per unit basis - it contributes substantially towards the costs of alcohol related harm. VAT on a bicycle is trivial compared to the mileage done by some people who use bicycles.

I've never faced a E2000 bill because of an injury done to me or my property by a pedestrian. I have faced such a bill because of the actions of a cyclist who did not have insurance to cover the cost of his actions. Of course this colours my perspective.

magicbastarder

Heh. Tell that to my mother in law who is being sued by a woman who claimed she (my mother in law) crashed into her. The insurance company confirmed to my father in law that they do not believe any accident occurred, but then still paid out for the supposed damage. Giving the other woman the green light to sue over whiplash.

My MIL lost her NCB and probably won't be able to change insurers for a few years until the case works itself out.

Thargor

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I've never faced a E2000 bill because of an injury done to me or my property by a pedestrian. I have faced such a bill because of the actions of a cyclist who did not have insurance to cover the cost of his actions. Of course this colours my perspective.

So you're happy to admit you're ridiculously biased? That just because you were involved in an accident with one cyclist that all cyclists should be punished not to mention the taxpayer who'd have to fund and administer the scheme, also the international headlines and ridicule caused by us becoming the first country backwards enough to require cyclists to be registered before they go on the road?

PeadarCo

Mrs OBumble wrote:

I've never faced a E2000 bill because of an injury done to me or my property by a pedestrian. I have faced such a bill because of the actions of a cyclist who did not have insurance to cover the cost of his actions. Of course this colours my perspective.

Ye but other people have. Insurance works on the basis that most people won't need it. You've presented one case. You could quite easily just have brought up a case of assault pedestrian on pedestrian that cost even more between the cost of dealing with the physical and physiological damage. We could quite easily just use that and the information about alochol related hospital admissions(accidents caused by bikes aren't recorded similarly which tells its own story) to make it a requirement to have insurance to drink alcohol. Its about a sensible suggestion as insurance on bikes.

You mention the case of VAT. If you do high milage on bike similar to cars you need to spend more on maintenance. Water is free if you have a public supply. But any replacement components are taxed at the standard rate.

feargale

Would all here favour compulsory number plates for bicycles to facilitate identification? Would anybody object to that?

mickdw

I think it's a no brainer but people here seem to very much resist such a move.
I don't see any legit reason to resist.
I see many reasons for people who want to get away with murder on their bike to resist though.

Thargor

mickdw wrote: »

I think it's a no brainer but people here seem to very much resist such a move.
I don't see any legit reason to resist.
I see many reasons for people who want to get away with murder on their bike to resist though.

Can you explain why its needed then? With evidence and statistics not idiotic stories about your mothers cousin getting knocked down at a zebra crossing...