Cyclists should do a theory test!

More cyclist more road accident, their test should not only be theory but more strict.

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.

Whataboutery. It's common among people who don't have a point.

RainyDay wrote: »

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.

Cars can be identified, there is no need for a "no id" rule for cars because the registration plate provides id in all cases, save rare cases of illegal alteration.

Bikes do not carry registration plates, so any enforcement that is taken against a lawbreaking cyclist depends on stopping and identifying the cyclist. There's nothing unequal about suggesting that a lawbreaker that has registration and ususally also id should be treated differently to a lawbreaker that has neither.

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?

So you never break red lights on your bicycle? Never ride on footpaths? Never disregard lane directions?

I speak from experience as a Dublin (and formerly Cork) pedestrian. Cyclists have no regard for the law. Full stop.

Yet, I also speak from experience as a motorist on boards, that cyclists tend to have a level of pathological hatred of motorists that is virtually unparalelled throughout society. Indeed I seem to remember a number of them promoting GPS trackers for cars, combined the idea that there was no such thing as a speed limit that was too low, as a limit dramatically below safe operating limits for no other reason could be used as a "test" Doubt she/he felt the same way about cyclists and traffic lights.

So as a pedestrian I face aggression from cyclists every day on the street - and I'm not the only one as another thread points out - while as a motorist I face aggression from cyclists (virtually all of whose names include "bike" or "cycl") whose views of motorists are only marginally less hateful than those of Stalin towards Eastern European nationalists.

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’?

You're the one who keeps going on about it ...

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”?

Were you a member of the IRA?

Is there evidence that a sugar tax has actually worked anywhere, or is this just your off-the-cuff idea?

If it were ringfenced to fund routine cancer screening (just as one example), I'm sure it would indeed work.

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.

I'm not the only one.

You’re just being pedantic now.

Oh look, a cyclist accusing me of being pedantic. I had to seriosly LOL when I read that. Cyclists are the first to offer "corrections" to someone using the technically inaccurate term "ROAD TAX" to describe taxes that motorists pay to put their cars on the road.

Seriously. Look for anywhere that someone has used the term "road tax" guaranteed there will be one or more cyclists swarming around the post to provide a pedantic 'correction' ... and you accuse me of "just being pedantic now" :P Well, I never ...

It has nothing to do with the roads.

It has everything to do with the roads. You can own whatever motors you like without paying tax on them, the tax is payable when you put the car ON THE ROAD.

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?

No, it's entirely accurate, because there will always be road deaths associated with motor usage. Unless you do something ridiculous like have a blanket 5MPH speed limit, there will always be mistakes that result in collisions. There will always be a "death toll" that "they" cause. Just like there will always be a "death toll" from plane crashes and train wrecks and the like.

The question is in finding the right balance between limiting regulations and limiting serious/fatal accidents. The balance was too far in the former direction during most of the 20th century. But we are now in danger of going too far in the latter direction, no prizes for guessing who I blame for this.

TBF, I'm still astonished that traffic lessons in schools don't seem to exist here.
Back home, this started in kindergarden, in primary school we were taught all the rules of the road pertaining to cyclists and had to pass a test before we were allowed to cycle in traffic. And the lessons continued on until we were in 10th grade (around 15/16 years old).

That said, I find even the rules of the road where cycling is concerned to be rather... well, patchy here.
To give an example, cyclists are legally allowed to cycle on the N25 between Carrigtohill and Cork. This is a dual carriageway with a speed limit of 120kph. Who in their right minds draws up legislation that allows for cycling on such a road?
I'd never take my bike there, but I see people cycle there nearly every morning and evening.

As for cycle paths - where they exist, they often are more dangerous than the roads due to their layouts.
And why are cyclists not allowed to cycle on the pavements? In some places, that is the safe option for all involved (thinking N25 again, where it enters Cork and narrows to 1 lane - there's a footpath but no cycle path there. Not that I've ever seen anyone walking there.)

Ruu wrote: »

They should pay road tax too!

Motor tax, there's no motor on a push bike hence no tax

Sam Kade wrote: »

Motor tax, there's no motor on a push bike hence no tax

And many of them also own cars, so they do in fact pay motor tax same as any other driver.

Theory test for cyclists should be compulsory, there's just too many dangers on the road, especially teenagers should be educated about road safety and rules of the road.

loverain wrote: »

Theory test for cyclists should be compulsory, there's just too many dangers on the road, especially teenagers should be educated about road safety and rules of the road.

I would extend that to all children and teenagers, whether they own a bicycle or not. It should be a compulsory subject in school.

steamengine wrote: »

The equality of sin, doesn't lessen the individual wrongdoing.

The equality of sin should lessen the confusion over it, but unfortunately it goes right over the head of most of these stupid cunts.