Cyclists should do a theory test!

Alf Veedersane · 04-06-2015 03:44PM

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

When I'm trying to cross the road walking through town and i cross on the green man, i just start walking in a straight line,

If a road user is still traveling through the green man then I'll be sure to walk straight into them causing them to slam on and have their own accident or in the case of a cyclist hopefully they will fall and hurt themselves, and if I'm injured as a result of their ignorance then I'll be sure to get the gardai involved and legal action taken.

This is the same method for any road user

If anyone is going to be that ignorant to me trying to cross the road then I'll do the same back BUT if you treat it with respect then I'll treat them with respect back

No, it's not. If a car breaks a red light and is coming for me on my bike, I usually try to minimise the risk of a collision.

I wouldn't fancy my chances of winning that game.

07Lapierre · 04-06-2015 03:56PM

Sometimes I'm a Cyclist,
Sometimes I'm a Motorist,
I'm always a Father,
I'm always a husband
I'm always an Uncle

and someday I hope to be a Grandad. (if your reading this...no pressure Son!

)

If more people stopped to think about their actions and how their stupidity could result in someone else being injured/killed, the roads would be a better place.

In the mean time though...better enforcement of existing laws for ALL road users would make all the difference..

Grandpa Hassan · 04-06-2015 05:41PM

Wow....people posting on this thread get wound up far too easily. This level of anger is not healthy

SeanW · 04-06-2015 10:46PM

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Yes. For many years

Funny, you sound like someone who has never walked on any main city streets in Ireland since at least the turn of the millenium. From having lived in Cork and now living/working in Dublin it's been my experience that cyclists are most likely to treat any traffic direction as theoretical and are by far the most agressive to me as a pedestrian.

RainyDay wrote:

Now it’s getting interesting – so it’s actually OK for motorists to break red lights with their ton of metal, once they aren’t speeding and tweeting at the same time. But those damn cyclists with their 10kg bikes – they’re the really dangerous ones? And you say I’m ‘a bit rich’?

Have you got a strawman factory somewhere? I never said it was "OK for motorists to break red lights" with anything. We had been discussing seizing road vehicles. Red Light Jumping laws can be enforced against motorists with automatic cameras, and those are being rolled out along the red line luas. There is no need to stop a motorist unless their behaviour means a collision is imminently likely.

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, you do need to say more. How about you say the bit that immediately follows that quote in the article;

So children on bikes cause lots of accidents? Even more reason to have a system of cyclist education and certification. Don't know what the **** you're doing? Stay off the road until you are supervised by someone who does.

Did I mention that motorists kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others?

Yeah, you kinda did. You left out a few points with this though:

Many of these road deaths are vehicular suicides, there's probably quite a few such collisions where the authorities thought it better for the family to put it down that so-and-so "lost control of the vehicle" rather than speculate that it was really a suicide.
As a leading cause of death, auto accidents are not even in the top 10. The biggest killers are heart disease, stroke, cancer etc. Motor - remember this includes vehicular suicides - may kill 200 people a year but heart disease kills something like 30,000, cancer and strokes are within an order of magnitude of this figure as well.

So if you really want to save lives, then get rid of Motor (of the Road) Tax, and forget about promoting cycling, instead replace the road (usage) tax with a sugar tax and promte gyms and use the sugar tax to subsidise regular cancer screening.

That is, if you're really about saving lives and not just having a go at motorists ... though I suspect it's the latter.

RainyDay wrote: »

group of road users who don’t kill anybody?

Those closest I've ever come to being killed or mained on city streets was by a cyclist. Yet who is the most vocal in calling for extreme measures against other road users? That's right, cyclists.

Cyclists pay tax. They pay income tax on their salaries, which are on average, higher than motorists salaries based on research in other countries. They pay VAT on their bike purchase, bike accessories and bike repairs, along with their other purchases. They pay customs duties, and CAT and all the other taxes too.

But they don't pay tax to use the road. Motorists do. That's why motorists sometimes call Motor Tax or Vehicle Excise Duty "Road Tax" because in both Ireland and the UK, the corresponding taxes are not on motor ownership but on the use of said motors on the road.

Indeed, the law is the law. And most people on the roads break the law every day – most drivers, most cyclists and most pedestrians.

True, but some are more hypocritical about it than others.

So I’ll ask the question again – what benefit would arise from a theory test or penalty point system for cyclists? How will this improve quality of life?

Pedestrians would be far better off for one thing.

but motorists kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others? There wouldn’t be an ever-so-slight touch of bias showing through there Sean, by any chance?

To take an extreme example, suppose we ban cars AND TRUCKS altogether. Say that saves 200 lives a year, but it makes the lives of 4 million dramatically worse by comparison. Is that a reasonable tradeoff in your view?

Because that's what your argument ultimately boils down to. Having motorists means a very small number of people die, but a very, very large number of have their quality of life very dramatically improved. That's the trade-off.

RainyDay · 05-06-2015 11:03AM

SeanW wrote: »

Have you got a strawman factory somewhere? I never said it was "OK for motorists to break red lights" with anything. We had been discussing seizing road vehicles. Red Light Jumping laws can be enforced against motorists with automatic cameras, and those are being rolled out along the red line luas. There is no need to stop a motorist unless their behaviour means a collision is imminently likely.

What you actually said was “If a motorist speeds through a red light while simultaneously tweeting about their dry cleaning and menacing those road users with the right of way, then yes” while your proposal for cyclists was “Simple. Break law, no id? Bike seized.”. Do you see the slight inequity there? Those in control of the ton or two of metal need to be actively menacing, while those in control of 10-20kg of metal will be seized on sight for any law-breaking? Perhaps you see now how non-sensical your proposal is.
Then you also played the “guilt by association” card with “Complaining about motorist breaking (often arbitrary) speed limits while being part of a group that disregards other laws wholesale, is a bit rich, you must admit.” Why do you hold me responsible for the behaviour of other cyclists? Given that I’m also a motorist, am I also responsible for the 200+ deaths on the road, as I’m ‘part of the group’? Given that I’m also Irish, am I responsible for the deaths in all the atrocities carried out by the IRA, as I’m “part of a group”?

SeanW wrote: »

So children on bikes cause lots of accidents? Even more reason to have a system of cyclist education and certification. Don't know what the **** you're doing? Stay off the road until you are supervised by someone who does.

It’s really dangerous when you misinterpret statistics like this. The report does not say that ‘children on bikes cause a lot of accidents’ at all. It says that when you look at cycle accidents, a significant number of them involve children, and in a significant number of those, the children were at fault. So yes, there is a safety issue involving children on bikes, but not the issue that you mis-interpreted.

SeanW wrote: »

Yeah, you kinda did. You left out a few points with this though:
Many of these road deaths are vehicular suicides, there's probably quite a few such collisions where the authorities thought it better for the family to put it down that so-and-so "lost control of the vehicle" rather than speculate that it was really a suicide.

As a leading cause of death, auto accidents are not even in the top 10. The biggest killers are heart disease, stroke, cancer etc. Motor - remember this includes vehicular suicides - may kill 200 people a year but heart disease kills something like 30,000, cancer and strokes are within an order of magnitude of this figure as well.

So if you really want to save lives, then get rid of Motor (of the Road) Tax, and forget about promoting cycling, instead replace the road (usage) tax with a sugar tax and promte gyms and use the sugar tax to subsidise regular cancer screening.

I wouldn’t disagree with you on much of this in theory. I’m a bit confused as to why you’d want to promote people to exercise indoors in gyms but not outdoors on their bike, but I’m sure you’ll work that one out in time. Is there evidence that a sugar tax has actually worked anywhere, or is this just your off-the-cuff idea?

SeanW wrote: »

That is, if you're really about saving lives and not just having a go at motorists ... though I suspect it's the latter.

Well I did think we were focusing on transport issues, but if you do want to broaden out the discussion, we can move on to world peace and income inequality and all the other important issues of our lifetime. It might make for a bit of a large thread though. It is interesting that you accuse me of ‘having a go’ when you repeatedly come up with nonsensical proposals about cyclists and cycling with no evidence to support them.

SeanW wrote: »

Those closest I've ever come to being killed or mained on city streets was by a cyclist. Yet who is the most vocal in calling for extreme measures against other road users? That's right, cyclists.

Yes, you keep repeating your personal experience, and I’ll keep repeating the fact (not opinion, not perception, not bias – but fact) that cyclists don’t kill or maim anyone. It is motorists that kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others.
So either your personal experience is very different to the vast majority, or you have a touch of ‘confirmation bias’ – you see what you want to see. I could take a guess as to which is the more likely explanation.

SeanW wrote: »

But they don't pay tax to use the road. Motorists do. That's why motorists sometimes call Motor Tax or Vehicle Excise Duty "Road Tax" because in both Ireland and the UK, the corresponding taxes are not on motor ownership but on the use of said motors on the road.

You’re just being pedantic now. Motorists pay tax (and most cyclists are motorists too of course) because they are an easy target. It’s an easy way for the Govt to collect a tax. It has nothing to do with the roads. It is not ring-fenced for roads. It’s just a tax collection mechanism. It most certainly does not give any special rights or entitlements to endanger other road users in traffic law.

SeanW wrote: »

True, but some are more hypocritical about it than others.

It’s hard to take an accusation of hypocracy from the man who complains about the dangers of cyclists while blissfully ignoring the reality of road traffic statistics all that seriously.

SeanW wrote: »

Pedestrians would be far better off for one thing.

Really? How come? Are there large numbers of unreported deaths and injuries to pedestrians? How will pedestrians be better off? And while you’re explaining that, you can explain what enforcement resources you’re going to put into these new laws? How many Garda hours do you plan to take away from enforcing traffic law against the user group that DO actually kill people to focus on the user group that don’t?

SeanW wrote: »

To take an extreme example, suppose we ban cars AND TRUCKS altogether. Say that saves 200 lives a year, but it makes the lives of 4 million dramatically worse by comparison. Is that a reasonable tradeoff in your view?
Because that's what your argument ultimately boils down to. Having motorists means a very small number of people die, but a very, very large number of have their quality of life very dramatically improved. That's the trade-off.

It’s not just an extreme example, it’s a nonsense example. No-one is proposing banning cars and trucks. The only proposal is about stopping dangerous driving. Does dangerous driving improve quality of life for anybody, or is there some other reason why you are so resistant to motorists actually taking some responsibility for the death toll they cause?

steamengine · 05-06-2015 06:09PM

The majority of cyclists are ok., I'm one myself, but there is a sizeable minority with an attitude problem on our roads. I met one such yesterday at Sutton Cross, whilst driving towards Howth. I was stopped at the lights in the left hand lane and when they turned green I noticed a cyclist to the left of me and slightly ahead. We both moved off, my route was straight ahead - the cyclist veered right across my path from left to right, without even looking behind or giving any hand signal. His intention clearly was to take a right turn up the Hill of Howth. There is a dedicated right turn lane at that crossing - which is where the cyclist should have been.

I sounded the horn, and he started remonstrating back at me, what his point was I'll never know. In any event I just shouted at him 'What about hand signals' ?

All a cyclist has to do is acknowledge when they're in the wrong and learn from their mistakes, but it seems the arrogance takes over. And yes motorists make mistakes too, but that's not the subject matter here. So yes, a lot of cyclists need to bone up on theory and a test would be no harm at all.

Tony Beetroot · 06-06-2015 02:15AM

It should be incorporated along with the holy communion ceremony

RainyDay · 06-06-2015 12:53PM

steamengine wrote: »

a test would be no harm at all.

But would it do any good? If you're going to invest public money, pass new legislation, divert attention from the death toll on the roads caused by motorists, you need something a bit more than 'no harm at all'.

steamengine · 06-06-2015 01:06PM

RainyDay wrote: »

But would it do any good? If you're going to invest public money, pass new legislation, divert attention from the death toll on the roads caused by motorists, you need something a bit more than 'no harm at all'.

Sure, what do you suggest then ? Personally, I would be in favour of cycle training, both theoretical and practical being introduced into the primary school curriculum. My first theory lessons in cycling were received in primary school back in the 1950's.

RainyDay · 06-06-2015 01:11PM

steamengine wrote: »

Sure, what do you suggest then ? Personally, I would be in favour of cycle training, both theoretical and practical being introduced into the primary school curriculum. My first theory lessons in cycling were received in primary school back in the 1950's.

You mean something like this?

http://irishcycle.com/2015/01/23/cycling-training-for-children-to-be-rolled-out-to-school-across-ireland-in-2016/

Burning Bridges · 06-06-2015 01:21PM

Interesting how drivers get so upset about cyclist breaking lights, is it because they are delayed getting to the back of the next line of traffic?

Lot of pent up anger in drivers, especially those caught up in traffic.

But if all the cyclists used their cars to commute can you imagine how long the traffic jams would be?

steamengine · 06-06-2015 01:31PM

RainyDay wrote: »

You mean something like this?

http://irishcycle.com/2015/01/23/cycling-training-for-children-to-be-rolled-out-to-school-across-ireland-in-2016/

Yes, that will do nicely - news to me but not before its time. I'm alarmed on several fronts by what I see around me - kids bombing along on footpaths, and cycling on the wrong side of roads. No looking around, no hand signals - a cycling mad Max has taken hold.

One of my recent favourites

was on the Malahide Road at Donnycarney - a cyclist on the mobile phone, NO HANDS on the handlebars, and a double-decker bus overtaking him. I was on the bus and was horrified to see it. There for the grace of God through my primary school instruction, all those years ago, go I.

Burning Bridges · 06-06-2015 03:28PM

steamengine wrote: »

Yes, that will do nicely - news to me but not before its time. I'm alarmed on several fronts by what I see around me - kids bombing along on footpaths, and cycling on the wrong side of roads. No looking around, no hand signals - a cycling mad Max has taken hold.

One of my recent favourites was on the Malahide Road at Donnycarney - a cyclist on the mobile phone, NO HANDS on the handlebars, and a double-decker bus overtaking him. I was on the bus and was horrified to see it. There for the grace of God through my primary school instruction, all those years ago, go I.

.

Amazing how many motorists are killed on our roads and them obeying all the rules , not speeding wearing their seat belts , indicating etc………….amazing.

steamengine · 06-06-2015 03:45PM

Burning Bridges wrote: »

.

Amazing how many motorists are killed on our roads and them obeying all the rules , not speeding wearing their seat belts , indicating etc………….amazing.

`

Sure yes, except the thread is about cyclists. Why try to defend the indefensible by switching the topic to 'motorists' ? By cyclists being more honest about their own mistakes on the road, they will be doing their bit in saving their own collective skins, at the end of the day.

Grandpa Hassan · 06-06-2015 03:54PM

steamengine wrote: »

`

Sure yes, except the thread is about cyclists. Why try to defend the indefensible by switching the topic to 'motorists' ? By cyclists being more honest about their own mistakes on the road, they will be doing their bit in saving their own collective skins, at the end of the day.

I think that the point was that theory tests / instruction make no difference to whether motorists break the rules (speeding, mobile phones etc). So why would your expect that doing a theory test would have any discernible impact on cyclist behaviour.

steamengine · 06-06-2015 04:07PM

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

I think that the point was that theory tests / instruction make no difference to whether motorists break the rules (speeding, mobile phones etc). So why would your expect that doing a theory test would have any discernible impact on cyclist behaviour.

It did in my generations case. That's how we first learned about the Rules of the Road and interact with other traffic. No test admittedly - a few class lectures/courses. It seems to me that some cyclists have been deprived of learning the most basic principles of cycling safety - hence their aberrant behaviour on the roads.

Grandpa Hassan · 06-06-2015 04:16PM

steamengine wrote: »

It did in my generations case. That's how we first learned about the Rules of the Road and interact with other traffic. No test admittedly - a few class lectures/courses. It seems to me that some cyclists have been deprived of learning the most basic principles of cycling safety - hence their aberrant behaviour on the roads.

But I think that everyone knows that you're not supposed to run a red. You don't need a theory test to tell you that. Or cycle on the pavement. I don't think that giving cyclists a mandatory theory test will change the behavior. Is someone is going to run a red then they are going to do it. Motorists speed even though they know it is against the rules....the test makes no difference

IMO it would be a big fat waste of money. I agree that cycling proficiency should be on the school curriculum, but anything else would not be cost effective as a way of changing behaviour

steamengine · 06-06-2015 04:31PM

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

But I think that everyone knows that you're not supposed to run a red. You don't need a theory test to tell you that. Or cycle on the pavement. I don't think that giving cyclists a mandatory theory test will change the behavior. Is someone is going to run a red then they are going to do it. Motorists speed even though they know it is against the rules....the test makes no difference

IMO it would be a big fat waste of money. I agree that cycling proficiency should be on the school curriculum, but anything else would not be cost effective as a way of changing behaviour

No you don't need a test, but cyclists clearly need the theory, especially dimwits, who cycle 'no hands' with buses alongside. Cycling safety is part of the theory, which in turn is part of cycling proficiency.

Grandpa Hassan · 06-06-2015 05:51PM

steamengine wrote: »

No you don't need a test, but cyclists clearly need the theory, especially dimwits, who cycle 'no hands' with buses alongside. Cycling safety is part of the theory, which in turn is part of cycling proficiency.

My point is that no amount of theory is going to make that guy not cycle with no hands with a bus alongside. You think just because he reads in a book that you shouldn't cycle with no hands he will change his behaviour?

steamengine · 06-06-2015 06:36PM

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

My point is that no amount of theory is going to make that guy not cycle with no hands with a bus alongside. You think just because he reads in a book that you shouldn't cycle with no hands he will change his behaviour?

Perhaps if he was shown a video of a 'no hands' cyclist's front wheel hitting a rut on the road, the errant cyclist being pitched off the bike, and winding up under the wheels of a bus, then it just might change his behaviour. In other words the 'theoretical' consequences of cycling in a dangerous manner.

But if you think not, that is up to you.

Burning Bridges · 06-06-2015 07:17PM

steamengine wrote: »

`

Sure yes, except the thread is about cyclists. Why try to defend the indefensible by switching the topic to 'motorists' ? By cyclists being more honest about their own mistakes on the road, they will be doing their bit in saving their own collective skins, at the end of the day.

So its a bit of a winge for motorists caught in traffic?

Cyclists make mistakes, motorists make mistakes, pedestrians make mistakes.

BTW cyclists who "break the law" are less likely to be killed , ironically.

I am not allowed to post a link.

steamengine · 06-06-2015 08:09PM

Burning Bridges wrote: »

So its a bit of a winge for motorists caught in traffic?

Cyclists make mistakes, motorists make mistakes, pedestrians make mistakes.

BTW cyclists who "break the law" are less likely to be killed , ironically.

I am not allowed to post a link.

So it's ok for cyclists to make mistakes because motorists and pedestrians do likewise ?

Have you any stats for cyclists running red lights ? My own reckoning is 90% at least - positively shocking. Buy hey !!! motorists do it too, and pedestrians (red man). :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, I know of an incident last year where a cyclist collided with a pedestrian who was crossing on the green man. The pedestrian pushed him forcibly out of his way and the cyclist wound up in a heap on the road and on picking himself up, got very stroppy with the pedestrian in question.

The pedestrian suggested they both proceed to the Garda station nearby, but the cyclist suddenly changed his tune and peddled off. But hey sure it's ok - motorists and pedestrians do the same thing. :rolleyes:

Sheldons Brain · 06-06-2015 08:15PM

As a law abiding motorist I welcome law enforcement and education measures for motorists who break the law.
One would expect that law abiding cyclists would welcome law enforcement and education measures for cyclists who break the law, but they mostly engage in whataboutery.

Pinch Flat · 06-06-2015 08:52PM

Oh wow another cyclist hating thread - seem to be a daily occurrence on boards at the moment. They will make sense when we've impeccable motorists and pedestrians, but cyclists like others break the rules.

There must be a correlation in this hate though - I think it's proportional to irelands car dependency - more cars, more people trying to cram onto overcrowded roads - then some motorists decide to look at alternatives (like cycling) to travel to and from work and next thing they're "scum"

"I'm sitting in this traffic jam I've helped create, that's costing me a lot of money, time and making me angrier by the day - oh look a cyclist breaking a red light".

Sheldons Brain · 06-06-2015 09:05PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Oh wow another cyclist hating thread - seem to be a daily occurrence o boards at the moment. They will make sense when we've impeccable motorists and pedestrians, but cyclists like others break the rules.

The merit or otherwise of this thread is entirely independent of the actions of motorists or pedestrians. You can start as thread on those issues if you wish.

Pinch Flat · 06-06-2015 09:10PM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The merit or otherwise of this thread is entirely independent of the actions of motorists or pedestrians. You can start as thread on those issues if you wish.

Well a lot of cyclists are drivers - in the order of 70 - 80%. I'm guessing a lot of these have already done the theory test or possess a driving licence or perhaps in a minority of cases got a licence through the amnesty. So what's the correlation between all those qualified drivers and the day to day numptiness you see on the roads in all veihicles?

My own view would be that all road users should start as cyclists for a period of time - make it mandatory before applying for a provisional licence - teach cycle craft in schools and make the move away slowly from our over dependence on the car. That way, we might have a chance of educating people from the most vulnerable road position to that over bigger and faster vehicles

Burning Bridges · 06-06-2015 09:27PM

steamengine wrote: »

So it's ok for cyclists to make mistakes because motorists and pedestrians do likewise ?

Have you any stats for cyclists running red lights ? My own reckoning is 90% at least - positively shocking. Buy hey !!! motorists do it too, and pedestrians (red man). :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, I know of an incident last year where a cyclist collided with a pedestrian who was crossing on the green man. The pedestrian pushed him forcibly out of his way and the cyclist wound up in a heap on the road and on picking himself up, got very stroppy with the pedestrian in question.

The pedestrian suggested they both proceed to the Garda station nearby, but the cyclist suddenly changed his tune and peddled off. But hey sure it's ok - motorists and pedestrians do the same thing. :rolleyes:

I work in the emergency services regularly see cyclists and children seriously injured or even killed by motorists. A pedestrian or cyclist hit by a car travelling at 50kmph has an 80% chance of dying.
I have not seen a motorist or even a pedestrian injured or even killed by a cyclist.

I don't cycle often , but when I do I am always aware that I can be killed in a moment, I always have a traffic camera running .

steamengine · 06-06-2015 09:47PM

Burning Bridges wrote: »

I work in the emergency services regularly see cyclists ...............seriously injured or even killed by motorists.
I have not seen a motorist or even a pedestrian injured or even killed by a cyclist.

I don't cycle often , but when I do I am always aware that I can be killed in a moment, I always have a traffic camera running .

All the more reason for cyclists to wise up, it is interesting to note how even on this thread cyclists won't own up to any mistakes, just blame motorists the whole time. If you don't mind me saying so, I know what I'm talking about as I currently cycle on average 3000 miles a year. There are many ways to look after yourself on a bicycle, I use mirrors as I want to know what traffic is doing to my rear as well as to the front and sides. Just the other day, I noticed a bus to my rear wasn't going to give me sufficient room as I was overtaking some parked cars, so I abandoned it, braked and pulled into the left. Had one of the parked cars opened a door, then I could have potentially been killed. Most cyclists I see, don't even look around them let alone use mirrors.

Pinch Flat · 06-06-2015 09:53PM

steamengine wrote: »

All the more reason for cyclists to wise up, it is interesting to note how even on this thread cyclists won't own up to any mistakes, just blame motorists the whole time. If you don't mind me saying so, I know what I'm talking about as I currently cycle on average 3000 miles a year.

Well yeah there's wising up or learning from mistakes - both times I've been knocked off my bike have been from the rear, with the motorist overtaking me to turn left. Both times I've had extremely bright flashing led lights on my helmet and bike. And a high vis bag cover.

This thought me to ride more assertively - so if I get a sense someone is going to try pull the same stunt, I'll take the lane. Might p!ss off a few who have that sense of urgency where I clearly don't matter, but what the hell

Burning Bridges · 06-06-2015 09:53PM

steamengine wrote: »

All the more reason for cyclists to wise up, it is interesting to note how even on this thread cyclists won't own up to any mistakes, just blame motorists the whole time. If you don't mind me saying so, I know what I'm talking about as I currently cycle on average 3000 miles a year.

Wow 3000 miles , 100 km a week?

Fair dues to you.

Cyclists should do a theory test!

Comments