Solving the “middle lane hoggers” problem.

Just came across this while reading about road traffic law in France
Drivers in France who linger in the middle or left lanes of a motorway without good reason can now be punished with a fine of up to €150 :D
Obviously for us who drive on the left that would read 'drivers who linger in the middle or right lanes'.

SeanW wrote: »

The only reason cyclists don't hurt or kill more pedestrians is that we learn by instinct to get the F@%& out of their way when they're riding on footpaths and "negotiate" with them at lights. Even at that most pedestrians will have had some close calls. I used to use the Sean O'Casey footbridge in Dublin, and I almost never used it without having to "negotiate" with two-wheeled lawbreakers. Which makes the complaints by two-wheeled lawbreakers about motorist lawbreaking seem rather galling.

Isn't it strange though how pedestrians haven't learned by instinct to get the F@%& out of the way of the motorists that kill close to one pedestrian each week on average. Do pedestrians have some kind of selective learning instincts that focus on the statistically least significant danger?

SeanW wrote: »

A textbook case of the pot calling the kettle black.

The lack of self-awareness is breathtaking.

SeanW wrote: »

ARJ raised the point with his claim of 98% of drivers breaking ubran speed limits. So let's take him at his word, say that's true, there's a problem. Such an insane figure, like 98% of motorists speeding, should be leading to something like, a very high number of road deaths. Yet it's not happening. It isn't linked to anything because there's nothing there. Less than 1/3 of road deaths occur in urban areas and the number that are, is of a total that is tiny by international standards. So the number, on a prima facie basis, is meaningless and of no real consequence. Something else must be going on. It just so happens that my experience as a road user - both as a pedestrian and a motorist - explain why ARJs 98% figure is totally meaningless.

Please don't take me at my word for anything. Please go read the RSA SPeed Survey 2018 where you'll find the 98% figure clearly identified. Then please go check the figures for non-compliance with speed limits on other types of roads. They range from around 50% up to around 90% depending on the type of road and speed limit.

So you can play pedantic games around the 98% limit, but either way, most drivers break speed limits on most roads.

And speed is one of the top three causes of road deaths.

SeanW wrote: »

Apologies in advance this is a long post, but there is a lot of nonsense, spin and half-truths to correct.

Well, we have a fair idea what causes most of our fatal accidents. Driving late at night often with drink taken, vehicular suicides that are written up as "accidents" for the sake of the family and so on.

We know that Ireland compares very favourably with the rest of the world when it comes to road fatalities by all measures. (Source). By all measures, absolute deaths, deaths per 100,000 population, deaths per 100,000 vehicles in the country, deaths per billion kilometres driven, Ireland is consistently near the bottom of the table. The data for this conclusion is clear and irrefutable.

We also know that the vast majority of fatal accidents occur in the countryside. According a report for the first half roughly of 2019, 79% of fatal accidents occurred in rural areas. (Source). We also know that many of the road fatalities (although I do not have figures) are vehicular suicides that get put down as "accidents" or "collisions" or whatever for the sake of the family.

That is, no matter how severe the regulations on motorists, there will always be someone who thinks that driving at 100MPH into a tree will solve all their problems. As such, there will always be "fatal accidents" and I think you know that damn well.

As long as you're continuing to mislabel crashes as 'accidents', you're nowhere near to identifying root causes. It's interesting though to see how you left out the major issues of driver behaviour identified in RSA research, like speeding, drink driving, fatigued driving.

And what's your source for these suicides that are labelled as 'accidents'? Who labels them as accidents? Gardai don't use that term. Coronors don't use that term. So who exactly is doing this labelling?

SeanW wrote: »

That is, no matter how severe the regulations on motorists, there will always be someone who thinks that driving at 100MPH into a tree will solve all their problems. As such, there will always be "fatal accidents" and I think you know that damn well.

[/SPOILER]

Nope, they're not 'fatal accidents' at all.

SeanW wrote: »

Except that both European and Global data clearly demonstrates that it is not.

I can't imagine that the bereaved families of the 150-ish people killed each year will be taking much solace from your European and Global data.

SeanW wrote: »

Again, false. Your data clearly shows that the maximum waiting time was 12 weeks in Kilrush and that double-digit figures were not uncommon.

But let's split the difference and say that you're half right - after half a century, the government has finally managed to bring waiting times down, at this moment in time, to usually under 3 months. So it's kind of half functioning, at this moment in time.

Meanwhile, in countries where things actually work, there are no waiting lists at all - ever - and in the example below you only have to wait 2 weeks for a driving test if you've just failed one.
https://portal.ct.gov/DMV/Licenses/Licenses/Testing---Road-Test

So your claim that Ireland is capable of running a driving testing system is at best a half-truth.

I was referring to average wait times, all of which are in single digits. And in fact, the double-digit times you mention ARE quite uncommon, just three out of forty odd locations have double-digit longest wait times.

But really, so what? What's the problem with a 1-2 month waiting time? What's the urgency involved in taking a test that people are going to be training for months to prepare for anyway?

SeanW wrote: »

How will a continuous testing system stop people from:
1. "Speeding" or using their mobile phones when not doing driver re-tests?
2. Driving late at night after a few jars?
3. Using their vehicles to commit suicide?
It will do nothing about any of these - and it is quite clear that it would not be the purpose.

Perhaps you might like the clarify your thinking about the value of testing in improving cyclist behaviour when you recommended testing as a requirement for cyclists a few years ago?

SeanW wrote: »

1) Irish roads/drivers/whatever are among the safest in the world. The data on this is clear and irrefutable.
2) There was an actual reason for the smoking ban.
3) And yet, it does not translate into massive numbers of fatalities. Further, it does not translate into urban fatalities, as most road deaths occur outside of urban areas.
4) That is - at best - a stretch.
5) Again, this is not true. In terms of causes of death in Ireland, traffic accidents do not even feature in the Top 10.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-10-leading-causes-of-death-in-ireland.html. In absolute terms traffic accidents cause well under 1% of Irish deaths.

Something going to get you eventually, it's probably not going to be a traffic accident.

1) Again, I'm not sure that the international data will give much solace to the families of the 150-odd avoidable deaths.
2) There is an actual reason for this proposal - to address the widespread, endemic lawbreaking by drivers on Irish roads that leads to 2 or 3 deaths each week.
3) Not 'massive numbers'? So 2 or 3 deaths is just to be accepted and ignored, despite the fact that the vast majority of these are easily avoidable.
4) It's a working system, and could be scaled upwards over time fairly easily. We may have to pay more to get testers as the employment market gets more and more competitive, but there you go.
5) They're not accidents. They are crashes or collisions, resulting in 2 or 3 avoidable deaths each week.

SeanW wrote: »

And I stand over that. Irish cyclists are under-regulated and they cycle accordingly. Anyone who has spent 5 minutes in an Irish city knows that cyclists are totally unregulated and most pedestrians learn within a short space of time that "negotiating" with two-wheeled lawbreakers is an essential survival skill.

Now, if you believe that greater enforcement of the existing laws would be better than new regulations for cyclists, then that's fine. But it also undermines your case for new regulations for motorists.

What's really galling is when cyclists who run red lights and cycle on footpaths with total impunity turn around say that motorists are under-regulated and should be drowned in stupid, pointless nonsense like continuous driving tests ...

The absence of any grasp on reality is quite fascinating. Motorists have killed more than 4,000 people since the turn of the century. Cyclists have killed two people over the same period.
And you reckon that cyclists are the ones that need more regulation, but not your beloved motorists? Do you think that there's the slightest chance that you could be exhibiting just a slight bias there?

Next time I'm a pedestrian in the middle lane of a motorway, I'll be sure to be extra careful to avoid the cyclists in the middle lane of the motorway.

SeanW wrote: »

And yet, Irish drivers are among the safest drivers by any measure. The international and European data behind that conclusion is clear and irrefutable.

Nope, not by any measure. For example, if you take measures like text messaging, phone use, social media checking, eating/drinking at the wheel, driving while excessively tired, we are among the worst in Europe.
https://www.stuartinsurancessoutheast.ie/2017/08/431/

But even if we were best in the world at all of these, so what? There’s still 2 or 3 families bereaved each week by largely avoidable collisions, largely caused by speeding, drink driving, fatigued driving.
What’s your message to the families bereaved by those drivers? “Tough, you’re just unlucky, suck it up”?

SeanW wrote: »

My gripes about lawbreaking cyclists comes from my usage of our roads and streets as a pedestrian. Boards is full of profligate lawbreakers who complain about others lawbreaking. "My lawbreaking doesn't matter, you're the baddie" seems to be a common refrain among two-wheeled lawbreakers. Cyclists who are looking for "lawbreakers" to complain about should start by looking in the mirror. For my part, there have probably been times I've come home from work having had to negotiate with two-wheeled lawbreakers only to log in to Boards and have to read from other two-wheeled lawbreakers (maybe even the same ones!) about how bad motorists are for lawbreaking ... Self-awareness indeed.

The problem with your gripes is the huge element of personal bias that oozes through your posts. As a pedestrian, the real danger to you is clear from even the most superficial review of evidence – it is motorists that kill close to one pedestrian each week on average, not cyclists. It is motorists who consistently break the law on every journey, and then come home and log into Boards to complain about cyclists. It is motorists that have killed more than 4,000 people since the turn of the century on Irish roads, compared to two deaths by cyclists over the same period, but you’re coming out with; “my lawbreaking doesn’t matter, cyclists are the baddies”. You really should start by looking in the mirror.

SeanW wrote: »

And yet it makes no difference. Ireland is near the bottom of the rankings globally and in Europe for road traffic fatalities by all measures. And urban areas are safer than out-of-town roads as less than 1/3 of fatalities occur in urban areas. So the 98% is irrelevant. Whether it's official data or something you made up, it is totally meaningless. It is not translating into anything.

I’d guess it makes a difference to the many families grieving the loss of a family member as a result of a speeding driver. You can look at all the international rankings you like – that doesn’t change the reality for the 2 or 3 families each week grieving the loss of a family member.
And I know it’s a standard Trump/Johnson tactic to try to undermine data and evidence, so there is no ‘whether it’s official data or’. It IS official data, from the 2018 RSA Speed Survey.
But if you don’t like the 98% urban speed limit violation rate as out-of-town roads are more important, then sure, let’s look at speed violation rates for out of town drivers.
Here’s a selection;
Dual carriageways 100kpmh limits, 88% of trucks and 44% of cars speeding
Local roads 50kmph, 66% of cars speeding
National secondary roads – 39% of trucks speeding
Regional roads 80 kmph 50% of cars speeding
Regional roads 50 kmph 49% of cars speeding
And you’re defending Irish drivers as over-regulated? Seriously?

SeanW wrote: »

How many of them are intentional?

Yes, I’m confused too. Do speeding drivers ‘accidentally’ push the accelerator? Do phoning/texting drivers ‘accidentally’ decide to update their WhatsApp group while driving? Do drink drivers ‘accidentally’ decide to have just one more pint?
When are drivers going to start taking responsibility for their actions?

SeanW wrote: »

I haven't. I consider drink-driving to be very bad and have made this clear on a number of occasions. Indeed, I suspect that drink-driving along with the lack of motorways were the main reasons why there were so many fatalities in the 1970s.

Great that we can agree on something.

SeanW wrote: »

It isn't "my" data, it is "the" data. The facts. And while data might not provide much comfort, it nevertheless does not lie. Irish drivers are among the safest in the world. That's a fact.

No, it definitely doesn’t provide much comfort to the families of those killed in avoidable collisions.
And It depends what measure you use for ‘safest’ – certainly based on mobile phone use, we’re far from safest.

SeanW wrote: »

In a system that you could actually call functional, there would be no waiting times. In systems that adhere to best practice, waiting lists are not a thing.

But yes, it has taken Ireland around half a century to get waiting times to mostly within three months, which is kind of acceptable. That's not great.

And again, so what? What benefit would arise from having instant availability of tests that take months to prepare for at best?

SeanW wrote: »

I don't care whether it is fixed by testing or more enforcement or a combination, but cyclist behaviour is awful. And most cyclists are in no position to lecture anyone about lawbreaking. Is that clear enough?

So just to be clear, motorist behaviour (as evidenced by having killed more than 4,000 people since the turn of the century) is just grand, nothing to see here, but cyclist behaviour (having killed 2 people since the turn of the century) is the big road safety issue of our generation that needs to be ‘fixed’ with extra licensing and tests, even though you’ve no idea how extra licensing and tests would improve motorist safety.
Have I got that right?
PS You might want to consider your own position as a motorist to be lecturing anyone about law-breaking.

SeanW wrote: »

Your frivolous "proposal" will not prevent any vehicular suicides. Won't stop anyone from drink-driving in between tests or speeding or most anything else.
I can't see what it might accomplish other than being frivolous, stupid, cruel and excessive for the sake of being frivolous, stupid, cruel and excessive.

Strange how you weren’t so focused on the apparent weaknesses of testing when you were recommending it for cyclists. What has changed since then?
And ‘cruel’? Really. ‘Cruel’? You’re going to play the victim card of the hard-pressed motorists being oppressed by the nasty cyclists, despite all the factual evidence to the contrary?
You’ve some neck.

SeanW wrote: »

Define "easily avoidable" given that Irish drivers are already among the safest in the world? You seem to have claimed that the majority of "accidents" are actually intentional, so how would you prevent the "vast majority" of deaths are preventable if they were caused on purpose?

Easily avoidable – as in, if Irish drivers would just obey speed limits, put their phones away, stop driving while drunk or tired, most deaths on Irish roads would be avoided. That’s how easily avoidable it is. They’re the top causes of road deaths from the Road Safety Authority.
And for the record, I didn’t claim that anything was intentional.
But please do tell, how a driver can ‘accidentally’ speed, or ‘accidentally’ use their phone or ‘accidentally’ have two or three pints?

SeanW wrote: »

The current system barely functions after half a century and you want to burden it with millions of frivolous re-tests?

Yes, you do seem confused. Tens of thousands of tests taking place every year here, and in your book it ‘barely functions’ because you want to be able to breeze and have your choice of testers sitting around waiting for you to give the nod, just because you’re in the mood?
It’s a ridiculous idea. People book their tests as they’re doing their lessons. They have to take at least twelve lessons anyway, and they need practice time in between.

SeanW wrote: »

I have a full grasp of reality. Irish drivers are among the best in the world in clear and quantifiable ways. Cyclists are - in the main - lawbreakers. Most of those complaining about how horrible Ireland's drivers are, are cyclists. And yet, when I'm walking on Sean O'Casey bridge (or indeed most footways), I don't have to worry about motorists. I have to worry about two-wheeled lawbreakers, some of whom probably cycle home to post on Boards about how motorists are awful lawbreakers.
Irish drivers are among the safest in the world by all quantifiable measures. That suggests the need for more over-regulation on motorists is being over-stated.

Irish drivers are – in the main – lawbreakers, with their speeding, their mobile phone use, their drink driving. Most of those complaining about how horrible Ireland’s cyclists are, are drivers who routinely break the law – breathtaking hypocrisy. Stand at any set of traffic lights in the city and watch the number of drivers that breeze through the red lights, half of them with their phones in their hands.
The need for more regulation on Irish motorists arises from the killing of two or three people each week on Irish roads. Why don’t you go and get your follow motorists to sort that out before you come lecturing cyclists?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Nope, not by any measure. For example, if you take measures like text messaging, phone use, social media checking, eating/drinking at the wheel, driving while excessively tired, we are among the worst in Europe.
https://www.stuartinsurancessoutheast.ie/2017/08/431/

And yet, the mortality one might expect from this is not occurring. Why?

I've given my reasons why I think all of this supposed lawbreaking still leaves Irish roads among the safest in the world. What is your explanation?

But even if we were best in the world at all of these, so what? There’s still 2 or 3 families bereaved each week by largely avoidable collisions, largely caused by speeding, drink driving, fatigued driving.
What’s your message to the families bereaved by those drivers? “Tough, you’re just unlucky, suck it up”?

I don't imagine there's a lot that could console a grieving family. But that doesn't change the facts. Irish road deaths are among the lowest in the world, and urban fatalities make up less than 1/3 of even those.

It is motorists who consistently break the law on every journey, and then come home and log into Boards to complain about cyclists.

No, it's mostly cyclists who whine about lawbreaking motorists. As a pedestrian, even accounting for all the lawbreaking scum on two wheels I encounter, I wouldn't be quite so annoyed if there weren't so many of you on boards demanding absurd and over the top regulation of other road users ... because lawbreaking is bad ... but only if other people do it.

It is motorists that have killed more than 4,000 people since the turn of the century on Irish roads

The highest number of fatalities in the past 20-odd years was in 2000, at 415. The lowest was in 2018, at 149. Most years in between, there were declines. The data on that is clear. Are you proposing to regulate future motorists on the basis of Year 2000 historical fatality counts

, compared to two deaths by cyclists over the same period, but you’re coming out with; “my lawbreaking doesn’t matter, cyclists are the baddies”. You really should start by looking in the mirror.

And yet, Irish drivers cause among the fewest fatalities on the roads of most countries on Earth, by all possible measures.

And I know it’s a standard Trump/Johnson tactic to try to undermine data and evidence,

Like trying to undermine the data and evidence that Irish drivers are among the safest in the world? So ... I guess, Heil Trump?

so there is no ‘whether it’s official data or’. It IS official data, from the 2018 RSA Speed Survey.

Whatever, it changes nothing.

But if you don’t like the 98% urban speed limit violation rate as out-of-town roads are more important, then sure, let’s look at speed violation rates for out of town drivers.
...

And yet, Irish drivers are among the safest in the world. And urban roads are safer than out-of-town roads as less than 1/3 of Irish fatalities occur in urban areas.

And you’re defending Irish drivers as over-regulated? Seriously?

In some respects, yes.

Yes, I’m confused too. Do speeding drivers ‘accidentally’ push the accelerator? Do phoning/texting drivers ‘accidentally’ decide to update their WhatsApp group while driving? Do drink drivers ‘accidentally’ decide to have just one more pint?

There are good online dictionaries that can explain what an accident is. I can help:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/accident?s=t

an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap:

So, regardless of cause, any crash that was not intentional, is by definition, an accident. Crashes can only either by intentional, or unintentional. The only crashes that are not accidents are vehicular suicides, staged "accidents" to rip off a drivers insurance or any other collision caused intentionally.

And It depends what measure you use for ‘safest’ – certainly based on mobile phone use, we’re far from safest.

So ... more of "but, but, but ... they're breaking the RULES!!!!" Isn't that what you accuse me of?

So just to be clear, motorist behaviour (as evidenced by having killed more than 4,000 people since the turn of the century)

Road deaths have fallen by more than half since 2000. Again, are you proposing to regulate motorists in 2020 on the basis of stuff that happened in 2000?

is just grand, nothing to see here, but cyclist behaviour (having killed 2 people since the turn of the century) is the big road safety issue of our generation that needs to be ‘fixed’ with extra licensing and tests, even though you’ve no idea how extra licensing and tests would improve motorist safety.
Have I got that right?

You have yet to explain how retesting motorists will stop people from:

1. Committing vehicular suicide.
2. Staging crashes to rip-off other drivers' insurance.
3. Driving drunk in between driving tests.
4. Speeding or using mobile phones in between tests.
5. Driving tired in between tests.

You won't explain how re-testing will prevent these things because your "proposal" cannot deal with any of them. Your "proposal" is only geared around indiscriminate, excessive punishment for the sake of it.

Strange how you weren’t so focused on the apparent weaknesses of testing when you were recommending it for cyclists. What has changed since then?

I've already explained this - cyclists don't seem to know that red lights mean stop. And that footpaths are for pedestrians. I don't care how cyclist behaviour is improved, whether through testing or better enforcement. If you'd prefer more enforcement of existing laws regulating cyclists in preference to new ones, I'm fine with that.

And I find it very galling that red light jumping footpath riders should lecture other people about lawbreaking. Especially Irish motorists.

And for the record, I didn’t claim that anything was intentional.

Yet you object to the term "accident"

Yes, you do seem confused. Tens of thousands of tests taking place every year here, and in your book it ‘barely functions’ because you want to be able to breeze and have your choice of testers sitting around waiting for you to give the nod, just because you’re in the mood?

Other countries manage not to have waiting lists at all. There's no inherent need for a waiting list.

It’s a ridiculous idea. People book their tests as they’re doing their lessons. They have to take at least twelve lessons anyway, and they need practice time in between.

And yet, in other countries, you can just do the drivers test whenever you're ready. No waiting list, no need for one.

Irish drivers are – in the main – lawbreakers, with their speeding, their mobile phone use, their drink driving. Most of those complaining about how horrible Ireland’s cyclists are, are drivers who routinely break the law – breathtaking hypocrisy.

It's mostly cyclists who gripe about motorists and demand stupid and disproportionate new regulations on a group of motorists who are among the safest in the world. You are just one in a long line of them.

The need for more regulation on Irish motorists arises from the killing of two or three people each week on Irish roads. Why don’t you go and get your follow motorists to sort that out before you come lecturing cyclists?

And yet you've provided no evidence that routine re-testing will prevent drivers from killing themselves and others in between driving tests.

None.
Nada.
Squat.
Zero.
Nothing.
Zip.

And you won't provide such evidence, because you can't.

SeanW wrote: »

And yet, the mortality one might expect from this is not occurring. Why?

I've given my reasons why I think all of this supposed lawbreaking still leaves Irish roads among the safest in the world. What is your explanation?

Mortality not occurring? Did I not mention the 2 or 3 people killed by motorists each week often enough?

And what's the relevance of 'safest in the world'? Who cares if we're safest in the world? We're still seeing motorists killing two or three people each week in largely avoidable collisions.

SeanW wrote: »

I don't imagine there's a lot that could console a grieving family. But that doesn't change the facts. Irish road deaths are among the lowest in the world, and urban fatalities make up less than 1/3 of even those.

I'll tell you what would console a grieving family, as the obvious seems to have gone over your head. What would console a grieving family would them NOT being a grieving family because some idiot driver went too fast, or was sending a hilarious meme to the lads on his WhatsApp group chat or because he had three pints after work or because he's had a really hard week in work and he's just too tired to take on a three hour run across the country in the dark.

SeanW wrote: »

No, it's mostly cyclists who whine about lawbreaking motorists. As a pedestrian, even accounting for all the lawbreaking scum on two wheels I encounter, I wouldn't be quite so annoyed if there weren't so many of you on boards demanding absurd and over the top regulation of other road users ... because lawbreaking is bad ... but only if other people do it.

There's a fascinating psychological study or thesis to be done here, perhaps focusing on denial or blinkered thinking. Apparently, it's not so much the behaviour of cyclists on the roads that bugs you, it is the fact that cyclists then have the temerity to come here on boards and make outrageous requests like; "Can drivers please stop killing people, pretty please?".

If you really need the difference explained to you, lawbreaking is bad when it leads to motorists killing 2 or 3 people on the road each week.

SeanW wrote: »

The highest number of fatalities in the past 20-odd years was in 2000, at 415. The lowest was in 2018, at 149. Most years in between, there were declines. The data on that is clear. Are you proposing to regulate future motorists on the basis of Year 2000 historical fatality counts https://b-static.net/vbulletin/images/smilies/confused.png

And yet, Irish drivers cause among the fewest fatalities on the roads of most countries on Earth, by all possible measures.

Like trying to undermine the data and evidence that Irish drivers are among the safest in the world? So ... I guess, Heil Trump?

And yet, Irish drivers are among the safest in the world. And urban roads are safer than out-of-town roads as less than 1/3 of Irish fatalities occur in urban areas.

I'm proposing to regulate motorists on the basis that they're killing 2 or 3 people each week on the road. Yes, road deaths have been steadily decreasing in response to increased regulation: NCTs, Mandatory Alcohol Checkpoints, Penalty Points and more.

You can do all the international comparisons you like. It doesn't change the facts of the CARnage caused by motorists on the road.

SeanW wrote: »

There are good online dictionaries that can explain what an accident is. I can help:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/accident?s=t
So, regardless of cause, any crash that was not intentional, is by definition, an accident. Crashes can only either by intentional, or unintentional. The only crashes that are not accidents are vehicular suicides, staged "accidents" to rip off a drivers insurance or any other collision caused intentionally.

The term 'accident' was embedded in road traffic culture in the 1930s by PR agents working on behalf of the motor industry in a clear strategy to sanitise the emerging problem of motorists killing large numbers of people on the road. You can choose to swallow a taxonomy invented by PR agents, but I don't. The Gardai don't. The RSA don't. Anyone with any actual interest in reducing road deaths doesn't.

SeanW wrote: »

So ... more of "but, but, but ... they're breaking the RULES!!!!" Isn't that what you accuse me of?

The difference is that when motorists break the rules, people get killed.

SeanW wrote: »

You have yet to explain how retesting motorists will stop people from:
1. Committing vehicular suicide.
2. Staging crashes to rip-off other drivers' insurance.
3. Driving drunk in between driving tests.
4. Speeding or using mobile phones in between tests.
5. Driving tired in between tests.
You won't explain how re-testing will prevent these things because your "proposal" cannot deal with any of them. Your "proposal" is only geared around indiscriminate, excessive punishment for the sake of it.

I've already explained this - cyclists don't seem to know that red lights mean stop. And that footpaths are for pedestrians. I don't care how cyclist behaviour is improved, whether through testing or better enforcement. If you'd prefer more enforcement of existing laws regulating cyclists in preference to new ones, I'm fine with that.

And I find it very galling that red light jumping footpath riders should lecture other people about lawbreaking. Especially Irish motorists.

I've already explained this. Motorists don't seem to know that red lights mean stop; http://kerrycyclingcampaign.org/but-all-drivers-break-the-lights/ And that footpaths are for pedestrians; https://twitter.com/search?q=%23makewayday&src=typed_query&f=image
You were happy to recommend extra testing as the solution to cyclist behaviour in the past, so I'm happy to jump on board your testing bandwagon as the solution to motorists killing people on the road. If you'd prefer more enforcement of existing laws regulating motorists, so that perhaps we don't end up with 98% of drivers breaking speed limits, I'm fine with that too.
And I find it very galling that speeding/texting/red-light jumping/footpath-parking/2-3 people each week killing motorists should lecture other people about lawbreaking. Especially Irish cyclists (who aren't the ones killing 2 or 3 people each week on the roads).

SeanW wrote: »

Yes you did - while ignoring the fact that it is proportionately among the lowest in the world.

If you're going to claim that Irish drivers are uniquely bad and that Irish drivers specifically require dramatically more regulation, it makes it legitimate to compare. Against what? International experience? European experience? Irish historical fatality statistics?

The facts are simple. Modern Irish drivers compare very well under all those headings.

Hard cases make bad law.

To show an example of why is so stupid, consider that Irish road fatalities measured per billion kilometres driven is 3.8. If we assume that all of them are down to urban speeding (which is impossible because urban fatalities are less than 1/3) then that means that a driver would have to drive - all at excessive speeds - 263,157,895 kilometers before causing a fatality.

Norway is typically the safest country in which to use the roads, by all measures, but even there, zero fatalities is impossible. So your "pretty please request" may sound easy when you say it quick, but even where the system is the best-of-the-best, it's not possible to have no fatalities. Even somewhere like Norway, unforeseen things will happen, people (being human) will make mistakes. As such, an aim-for-zero standard is impossible to achieve. The data on this is clear.

Another example is Canada. It has the closest to what you want - their driver licensing system is a Byzantine "graduated licensing" system that takes years and multiple tests to go through, but the fare worse than Ireland in every single measure! Thusly, we can conclude that more regulations does not equal lower fatalities.

And yet, the average Irish driver would have to drive 263,157,895 kilometres before causing a fatal accident. That's very good by international standards. The vast majority of drivers and journeys are safe.

You're proposing stupid, cruel, excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate over-regulation on the basis of "those howwible motowists are not obey the wules and I don't wike it".

And you can hijack threads with your inane gripes from now until the end of eternity. It's not going to change the fact that Irish drivers are:

1. Heavily regulated.
2. Very safe by international/European standards.

Hijack as many threads as you want with this. The facts will still remain.

And yet the English language does?

Very, very, rarely.

If that survey didn't find RLJing cyclists, it wasn't looking for them ... as for your second link, there were a wide variety of causes for pedestrian path blockage. Including some rather questionable parking jobs by cyclists.


I really have no idea what you're trying to say here.

1) Are you claiming that Irish drivers are some kind of unique evil that require more regulation/enforcement when they are statistically among the safest in both Europe and the world?
2) What is the relevance of your 98% figure? It has already been shown that a very small minority road fatalities that do occur are in urban areas, so what relevance is your claim that 98% of drivers break speed limits in urban areas?
3) How do you explain how all of this lawbreaking is causing so few fatalities?
4) How will continuous driver retesting deal with vehicular suicides? How will it prevent drunk driving or other terrible driving in between tests?

So let's sumarise;

Motorists have killed more than 4,000 people here since the turn of the decade, mostly as a result of avoidable law-breaking; speeding, drink driving, poorly maintained vehicles. Cyclists have killed two people over the same period.

You proposed testing for cyclists in the past as a solution to cyclists misbehaviour on the road. Now today, you're utterly resistant to the idea of additional testing for motorists, because we're looking OK on some international table.

This is despite the fact that motorists are continuing to kill 2 or 3 people each week on the roads, and that law-breaking among motorists is utterly endemic.

So maybe you could explain why testing is a good solution for lawbreaking cyclists but not a good solution for lawbreaking motorists ?