Cyclists should do a theory test!

Jawgap wrote: »

Probably explains why they're more difficult to hit:D

In London they're finding trucks and buses quite useful for this.

folamh wrote: »

Bikes are just faster versions of pedestrians.

Probably explains why they're more difficult to hit:D

folamh

Bikes are just faster versions of pedestrians.

RainyDay

REXER wrote: »

Training of cyclists should start early with school children so that they are not at so much risk on the roads.

Here,s a great idea from the 3rd world that works very well and has for a long time since being set up in 1961.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.737340529650528.1073741831.232876996763553&type=3

All junior school children at 10, 11, 12 years old used to spend a day at this traffic training centre learning the rules of the road and then getting out on the road in the complex on bicycles under supervision to show that they were safe in traffic.

This was always considered a great day out of school!

Do you mean something like the training options mentioned in this earlier post in this thread?

REXER wrote: »

As for licencing, there was an annual nominal cycle tax that needed to be paid, for which you got a numbered token/disc that was then attached to you bike. This numbered token linked your bike make, model and frame number to your name and was regularly checked by the police on the roads as well as at the school cycle sheds etc.

I have a very good collection of these licences dating back to the 1920/30 that included 3 wheelers and carts as well.

Any pics?

Jawgap wrote: »

...Walking??? Feck that....:)

I couldn't agree more!

jimgoose wrote: »

Couldn't tell you chief. That just sounded pretty risky to me.

From the GLA.....

More pedestrians are killed or seriously injured on London’s streets than any other road user group. Sixty-nine pedestrians were killed and another 1,054 seriously injured in London in 2012 – an average of three people a day. There were 14 cycling fatalities.

Walking??? Feck that....:)

222233

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Seriously, how many times that this happened to you?

One time and it was in my new car so ya I was pretty p*****! Still waiting to hear back from Gardai as there are cameras, but sadly as bikes don't have regs can't be easily traced.

Jawgap wrote: »

How many pedestrians and drivers were killed in the same period?

What was the total no. of km cycled in London during the period in comparison to other modes of road use?

Oh, and Ireland isn't London - I dare say more than 5 were killed in Beijing during the same period

Couldn't tell you chief. That just sounded pretty risky to me.

jimgoose wrote: »

Haven't there been five cyclists killed in London so far this year?

How many pedestrians and drivers were killed in the same period?

What was the total no. of km cycled in London during the period in comparison to other modes of road use?

Oh, and Ireland isn't London - I dare say more than 5 were killed in Beijing during the same period

Jawgap wrote: »

Where's the evidence cyclists are at risk on the roads?

Haven't there been five cyclists killed in London so far this year?

REXER wrote: »

Training of cyclists should start early with school children so that they are not at so much risk on the roads.

Here,s a great idea from the 3rd world that works very well and has for a long time since being set up in 1961.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.737340529650528.1073741831.232876996763553&type=3

All junior school children at 10, 11, 12 years old used to spend a day at this traffic training centre learning the rules of the road and then getting out on the road in the complex on bicycles under supervision to show that they were safe in traffic.

This was always considered a great day out of school!

As for licencing, there was an annual nominal cycle tax that needed to be paid, for which you got a numbered token/disc that was then attached to you bike. This numbered token linked your bike make, model and frame number to your name and was regularly checked by the police on the roads as well as at the school cycle sheds etc.

I have a very good collection of these licences dating back to the 1920/30 that included 3 wheelers and carts as well.

Where's the evidence cyclists are at risk on the roads?

REXER

Training of cyclists should start early with school children so that they are not at so much risk on the roads.

Here,s a great idea from the 3rd world that works very well and has for a long time since being set up in 1961.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.737340529650528.1073741831.232876996763553&type=3

All junior school children at 10, 11, 12 years old used to spend a day at this traffic training centre learning the rules of the road and then getting out on the road in the complex on bicycles under supervision to show that they were safe in traffic.

This was always considered a great day out of school!

As for licencing, there was an annual nominal cycle tax that needed to be paid, for which you got a numbered token/disc that was then attached to you bike. This numbered token linked your bike make, model and frame number to your name and was regularly checked by the police on the roads as well as at the school cycle sheds etc.

I have a very good collection of these licences dating back to the 1920/30 that included 3 wheelers and carts as well.

ArmaniJeanss

grundie wrote: »

I'm talking about a permit for the cyclist not the bike. A simple system that says "We trust you, but if you mess about then no more cycling for you". Guards can issue all fines they want to a cyclist but short of a special court order there is no way to stop someone from riding a bike at all due to consistent rule violations.

Make getting the permit a rite of passage thing. Prepare teenagers for it, make it as significant as getting a car licence.

All those foreign cycling tourists we are trying to attract to the greenways we are building, do we just tell them to fcuk off now?
Or is your license permit plan an EU/Worldwide idea?

RainyDay

grundie wrote: »

That being said... Based on my own experiences I'd say far fewer car drivers break rules than cyclists. That is because they know that due to active enforcement of the rules they could suffer the consequences, which at best will inconvenience them and at worst land them in jail.

Really? Active enforcement? Are you living on another planet?

Look around you and see almost every car driver in the city routinely breaking the speed limit on the journey. Look at what % of car drivers are using their phone. Look at what percentage fail to indicate, or drive with a broken brake light.

Having said all that, could you please be specific as to what benefit or outcome you expect to arise from this licensing system - is it going to save lives, or reduce injury rates, or what? And please consider the 'opportunity cost' as part of this analysis - what will be the impact of diverting Garda time to give out 'strikes' from the road user group that kills 200+ people each year and maims thousands of others.

grundie wrote: »

I'm talking about a permit for the cyclist not the bike. A simple system that says "We trust you, but if you mess about then no more cycling for you". Guards can issue all fines they want to a cyclist but short of a special court order there is no way to stop someone from riding a bike at all due to consistent rule violations.

Make getting the permit a rite of passage thing. Prepare teenagers for it, make it as significant as getting a car licence.

I suspect that everyone would just 'forget' to carry it, and then you are back to square one

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Sounds pretty much like a licence to me. The Guards already can pull over and fine cyclists on the spot. Unless your 'permit to cycle' is a formal licence, it provides nothing more than we already have. And what about Dublin bikes, which is only expanding further. They just dont have the appetite to enforce. Same as they cant be bothered to pull over cars that run the red.

There does not need to be any legislative change. There just needs to be an appetite for enforcement.

And a database would be impossible. There are more bikes than cars in the country which change hands more often and, more often than not, are shared. Just look at every rusty hybrid in every college campus in the country. Every bike that is pulled out of a shed for a summer ride. Would be completely inefficient and unworkable.

The problem is that advocates of licenes, or your 'permit to ride' idea focussed just on the lycra clad commuter or courier, forgetting that they are a minority of cyclists.

I'm talking about a permit for the cyclist not the bike. A simple system that says "We trust you, but if you mess about then no more cycling for you". Guards can issue all fines they want to a cyclist but short of a special court order there is no way to stop someone from riding a bike at all due to consistent rule violations.

Make getting the permit a rite of passage thing. Prepare teenagers for it, make it as significant as getting a car licence.

kylith

Good point about the Dublin Bikes. They would either have to completely scrap the scheme, costing thousands to dispose of the bikes and lost revenue, not to mention the negative publicity regarding the scrapping of one of the most successful bike schemes in Europe, or every tourist would have to be given a cycling proficiency test and licenced when they land in Dublin just in case they decide to hire a bike during their stay.

Clearlier wrote: »

What's the reason for bad motoring behaviour?

Some people just don't care, or have their own interpretation of the rules.

That being said... Based on my own experiences I'd say far fewer car drivers break rules than cyclists. That is because they know that due to active enforcement of the rules they could suffer the consequences, which at best will inconvenience them and at worst land them in jail.

I cycle to work a few times each week and most (yes, most) cyclists I encounter seem to think that red lights are for someone else. On a few occasions I've been shouted at for stopping at a red light and holding up cyclists behind me. Car drivers for the most part would never ignore a red because, consequences.

The only way to force cyclists to obey the rules of the road is to make it easy for the authorities to take action against violators. There has to be consequences for rule breakers. The alternative is build a proper grade separated cycle network like those in Denmark or the Netherlands, but that's not likely.

grundie wrote: »

I'm not advocating licensing. I'm advocating a system whereby the Guards can quickly and easily take action against bad cyclists.

Assume all adult cyclists can be trusted to begin with and give them a "Permit to Cycle" with five lives. If they do wrong simply take away a life or two. Leave children as the responsibility of their parents.

The database issues are a red herring. The RSA has no issues managing a database for car drivers licences.

The reason why bad cyclists behaviour doesn't change is because they know that they have little to fear. It is too hard/time consuming for the Garda to enforce, if the Guards had an easy way to punish violators then things might change.

Sounds pretty much like a licence to me. The Guards already can pull over and fine cyclists on the spot. Unless your 'permit to cycle' is a formal licence, it provides nothing more than we already have. And what about Dublin bikes, which is only expanding further. They just dont have the appetite to enforce. Same as they cant be bothered to pull over cars that run the red.

There does not need to be any legislative change. There just needs to be an appetite for enforcement.

And a database would be impossible. There are more bikes than cars in the country which change hands more often and, more often than not, are shared. Just look at every rusty hybrid in every college campus in the country. Every bike that is pulled out of a shed for a summer ride. Would be completely inefficient and unworkable.

The problem is that advocates of licenes, or your 'permit to ride' idea focussed just on the lycra clad commuter or courier, forgetting that they are a minority of cyclists.

Clearlier

grundie wrote: »

I'm not advocating licensing. I'm advocating a system whereby the Guards can quickly and easily take action against bad cyclists.

Assume all adult cyclists can be trusted to begin with and give them a "Permit to Cycle" with five lives. If they do wrong simply take away a life or two. Leave children as the responsibility of their parents.

The database issues are a red herring. The RSA has no issues managing a database for car drivers licences.

The reason why bad cyclists behaviour doesn't change is because they know that they have little to fear. It is too hard/time consuming for the Garda to enforce, if the Guards had an easy way to punish violators then things might change.

What's the reason for bad motoring behaviour? That's a bit of a leading question so I'll flesh it out a little. Some cyclists are badly behaved, some motorists are badly behaved. Why would you think that imposing rules on cyclists that are imposed on motorists would make any difference? It's important because there's no point incurring a cost if there's no benefit. Some people are just idiots, it doesn't really matter whether they're walking, cycling or driving.

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

And we're back to licencing again. This thread is going round in ever decreasing circles.

Here's a good link to real life example of why licencing does not work and is not cost effective. In a city, incidentally, which would be able to administer it a lot more effectively than we could!

http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=0be4970aa08c1410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

The City of Toronto has investigated licensing cyclists on at least three occasions in the recent past:
1984: focus on bike theft

1992: focus on riding on sidewalks, traffic law compliance and couriers

1996: focus on riding on sidewalks, traffic law compliance and couriers

Licensing in the nineties has been most often discussed in response to concerns for pedestrian safety on sidewalks, where incidents of collisions, near misses, and a lack of courtesy have made many pedestrians, including seniors feel insecure.
Each time the City has rejected licensing as a solution to the problem under discussion.
The major reasons why licensing has been rejected are:
The difficulty in keeping a database complete and current

The difficulty in licensing children, given that they ride bikes too

Licensing in and of itself does not change the behaviour of cyclists who are disobeying traffic laws.

I'm not advocating licensing. I'm advocating a system whereby the Guards can quickly and easily take action against bad cyclists.

Assume all adult cyclists can be trusted to begin with and give them a "Permit to Cycle" with five lives. If they do wrong simply take away a life or two. Leave children as the responsibility of their parents.

The database issues are a red herring. The RSA has no issues managing a database for car drivers licences.

The reason why bad cyclists behaviour doesn't change is because they know that they have little to fear. It is too hard/time consuming for the Garda to enforce, if the Guards had an easy way to punish violators then things might change.

grundie wrote: »

Give every cyclist an ID card, load it with 5 'strikes'. No need for a test, just simply provide a photo, pay a small fee, acknowledge that you have read and understand the rules of the road for cyclists and the ID card is yours.

Every time a cyclist breaks a rule and a Garda sees it. the Garda takes away a strike (more if a serious violation). Once they lose all their strikes then they can't cycle on the road anymore. Just like losing a car licence for dangerous driving.

And we're back to licencing again. This thread is going round in ever decreasing circles.

Here's a good link to real life example of why licencing does not work and is not cost effective. In a city, incidentally, which would be able to administer it a lot more effectively than we could!

http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=0be4970aa08c1410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

The City of Toronto has investigated licensing cyclists on at least three occasions in the recent past:

1984: focus on bike theft
1992: focus on riding on sidewalks, traffic law compliance and couriers
1996: focus on riding on sidewalks, traffic law compliance and couriers

Licensing in the nineties has been most often discussed in response to concerns for pedestrian safety on sidewalks, where incidents of collisions, near misses, and a lack of courtesy have made many pedestrians, including seniors feel insecure.
Each time the City has rejected licensing as a solution to the problem under discussion.
The major reasons why licensing has been rejected are:

The difficulty in keeping a database complete and current
The difficulty in licensing children, given that they ride bikes too
Licensing in and of itself does not change the behaviour of cyclists who are disobeying traffic laws.

Lyaiera

grundie wrote: »

Give every cyclist an ID card, load it with 5 'strikes'. No need for a test, just simply provide a photo, pay a small fee, acknowledge that you have read and understand the rules of the road for cyclists and the ID card is yours.

Every time a cyclist breaks a rule and a Garda sees it. the Garda takes away a strike (more if a serious violation). Once they lose all their strikes then they can't cycle on the road anymore. Just like losing a car licence for dangerous driving.

The problem with that is you'd legitimise cyclists. Then they'd start expecting other road users to treat them with respect. Cheeky cyclists.

Give every cyclist an ID card, load it with 5 'strikes'. No need for a test, just simply provide a photo, pay a small fee, acknowledge that you have read and understand the rules of the road for cyclists and the ID card is yours.

Every time a cyclist breaks a rule and a Garda sees it. the Garda takes away a strike (more if a serious violation). Once they lose all their strikes then they can't cycle on the road anymore. Just like losing a car licence for dangerous driving.

222233 wrote: »

So its okay for them to scrape the side of my car and cycle off?

Seriously, how many times that this happened to you?

rubadub

222233 wrote: »

Insurance for cyclists is not needed????

Correct, the majority of the worlds governments have decided that it's not needed, doesn't take a genius to figure out why.

222233 wrote: »

So its okay for them to scrape the side of my car and cycle off

Nope, just like its not okay for pedestrians to do the same. I have seen people scrapping buggies off illegally parked cars. People do it in supermarket car parks all the time too with trolleys, probably moreso than cyclists. Maybe we should have shop trolley insurance and theory tests of the use of them. And pedestrian insurance.