nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Cyclists should do a theory test!

lickme

A lot of cyclists have no concept of the rules of the road and are getting more and more agressive. There acting like they have the right of way the whole time, weaving in and out of traffic, breaking red lights, not adhering and not looking for possible dangers ahead. Stricter and harsher penalties are needed for them. A piece of advice playing chicken with cars will not work well in the long run for ye. Should be made do some sort of simulation test or something. They are some decent cyclists but most are idiots.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

jimgoose

beauf wrote: »

...Theres also this...

http://www.lamborghini.it/ie_en/biking.html

Ooh, well-weapon. I'm told they also still do a decent line in tractors! :cool:

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

I'm not moaning, you're the one with a bee in his bonnet for years on this forum over the fact there's no 'motor' tax on cyclists, despite you being in a more 'parasitic' (again, I'm just using your words) situation.

You appear in every thread to do with cyclists pushing your same ill thought out arguments.

Why do you think I'm more parasitic than yourself, I provide (via my business ) an option for up to 8 people to travel to work, social functions etc. That business incurs costs, which are ultimately paid for by the passengers ( you know that thing called business again! ) That's why it's termed an SPSV, you on the other hand ...

gormdubhgorm

lickme wrote: »

A lot of cyclists have no concept of the rules of the road and are getting more and more agressive. There acting like they have the right of way the whole time, weaving in and out of traffic, breaking red lights, not adhering and not looking for possible dangers ahead. Stricter and harsher penalties are needed for them. A piece of advice playing chicken with cars will not work well in the long run for ye. Should be made do some sort of simulation test or something. They are some decent cyclists but most are idiots.

I hope the people on you tube (that go around with cameras on thier helmets) making videos of motorists see this

Spook_ie

Qualitymark wrote: »

Properly separated cycle lanes, with barriers to stop cars entering them or parking in them, are the only way to go.

The red lights business - like a red rag to a bull to many motorists - is a bit of a nothing; in many cases it's safer for a cyclist to go through a red light http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/more-idaho-stop-and-why-cyclists-should-be-able-roll-through-stop-signs.html

No point, cyclists aren't required to use them, so why waste the money building them, give the money over to public transport and mass transit

CramCycle

Spook_ie wrote: »

No point, cyclists aren't required to use them, so why waste the money building them, give the money over to public transport and mass transit

Have to agree with you there, more money does need to be spent on public transport. Trains, buses and trams, the better these run, the less congestion we should see over time as more people turn to them. Pearse St. is a great example, they have gotten rid of one lane of traffic from half of the street to accomodate more PT and it seems to have made no difference to traffic times for non PT vehicles.

A great idea and one to be promoted more. No idea what this has to do with a theory test though.

Like I have said many times before, make it part of the curriculum at NS level, make it a subject or mandatory course at JC level, easier, more beneficial as it captures everyone at a young age before bad habits fully form, educates peds, cyclists and future motorists.

PeadarCo

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why do you think I'm more parasitic than yourself, I provide (via my business ) an option for up to 8 people to travel to work, social functions etc. That business incurs costs, which are ultimately paid for by the passengers ( you know that thing called business again! ) That's why it's termed an SPSV, you on the other hand ...

Have saved the government huge amounts in health service costs, and save money on motoring costs that can be reinvested in other parts of the economy.

Given that practically all of equipment/fuel required from running/buying a car aside from labour costs has to be imported, if even a fraction of this savings are reinvested in indigenous goods its a boost to the local economy.

Also unless you've been living under a rock you'd be aware of the obesity epidemic due to people eating too much/not exercising enough. Cycling addresses the 2nd point as it means people can incorporation exercise into their daily routine.

Chips Lovell

I'd be completely opposed to dedicated cycling infrastructure too. Does more harm than good. Money would be better spent elsewhere.

beauf

http://c2.thejournal.ie/media/2015/01/pic-2-cycle-415x500.png

Relative numbers of cyclists to other forms of transport.

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I'd be completely opposed to dedicated cycling infrastructure too. Does more harm than good. Money would be better spent elsewhere.

How so? It increases the numbers. With an increase in numbers there will be more accidents. What happened to the idea of safety in numbers?

There are many factors, such as cycle tracks and other cycling infrastructure, which contribute to cycling levels. A number of cities have demonstrated that particular cycle tracks will increase bike traffic on those routes, as shown, for example, in Montreal, New York City and Copenhagen. Bike usage increased by 40% in areas of Montreal where the city invested in bike paths and lanes.[10][107] In Copenhagen bike traffic increased by about 20% because of the construction of cycle tracks.[14] The construction of separated bike lanes on Dunsmuir Street and Viaduct in Vancouver, Canada, saw bike traffic volumes on the street more than double from before the construction.[114] NYC likewise saw cycling rates nearly triple on weekdays and doubled on weekends when the bike path was installed alongside Prospect Park West.[18]

Seville, Spain, is an example of what is possible on a city scale when a large investment is made in cycling infrastructure over a short period of time. In 2006 there were around 6000 bike trips made daily in the city of around 700,000. By 2009 there were about 50,000 daily bike trips. During those three years 8 urban bike paths totaling 70 km were built; the city centre was closed to motorised traffic; school projects were funded to create safe school paths; traffic calming measures were provided in school districts and the bicycle sharing system ‘Sevici’ was launched. The combination of all these factors helped to create a dramatic change in cycling rates.[115]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities#Studies_showing_greater_benefits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities#Studies_not_supporting_segregation

seamus

What's funny is that in 20/30 years time when 90% of commercial vehicles have been replaced by self-driving vehicles and the majority of short trips down to the shops and schools are done on bicycle, all this talk of segregated infrastructure and special safety equipment will seem as foreign and farcical as having a man walking in front of a car holding a lamp to warn pedestrians.

Chips Lovell

It does nothing to encourage cycling by reinforcing the erroneous impression that cycling is so dangerous, you need to be segregated from other traffic to stay safe.

It also hardens the belief among some motorists that cyclists don't belong on the road.

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why do you think I'm more parasitic than yourself, I provide (via my business ) an option for up to 8 people to travel to work, social functions etc. That business incurs costs, which are ultimately paid for by the passengers ( you know that thing called business again! ) That's why it's termed an SPSV, you on the other hand ...

I pay motor tax on two cars, I already told you that, which I don't claim back from the state. My motor tax stays within the state coffers, as well as my general VAT, my PAYE, tax and VAT I pay on services I use during my business, VAT I paid on my bike, bike related products, running clothing, and on and on. All my business comes from outside of the country too, I don't draw it from within the state.

You're really grasping at straws to make any sort of cohesive argument. You have failed to demonstrate why this entitles you to use the road any more than someone on a bike. You admitted yourself your motor tax can be claimed back as an expense, therefore not going towards the infrastructure. You're far from the only person in the country to pay tax, or have business costs, on any other outgoings you have as part of your every day business. Are you implying cyclists don't work or something ?

I can only assume at this stage you're purposely ignoring the fact that cyclists are entitled to be on the road as much as you are, using your very own logic which is based on how much tax is paid.

And as for cyclists who cycle to work to pick up a bus they drive for a living, they must be royalty to you.

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

I pay motor tax on two cars, I already told you that, which I don't claim back from the state. My motor tax stays within the state coffers, as well as my VAT, my PAYE, tax and VAT I pay on services I use during my business, VAT I paid on my bike, bike related products, running clothing, and on and on. All my business comes from outside of the country too, I don't draw it from within the state. You're really grasping at straws to make any sort of cohesive argument.

I can only assume at this stage you're purposely ignoring the fact that cyclists are entitled to be on the road as much as you are, using your very own logic which is based on how much tax is paid.

And as for cyclists who cycle to work to pick up a bus they drive for a living, they must be royalty to you.

You pay motor tax on two cars, lifestyle choice, use public transport, or (dare I say it, of course I'll dare ) take a taxi, having paid motor tax on two cars doesn't give you twice as much right to the road, and paying motor tax on two cars still doesn't translate to having paid anything for the privilege to cycle on the roads

CramCycle

beauf wrote: »

How so? It increases the numbers. With an increase in numbers there will be more accidents. What happened to the idea of safety in numbers?

Segregated infrastructure seems to teach other traffic not to expect cyclists at junctions, almost as if other road users cannot comprehend that the lanes beside them will join them at junctions. I have seen a schematic of it before but can't remember the figures, it basically increases the risk of crashes at junctions quite substantially. If you are on the road, the vehicle behind you has to acknowledge you to pass you, therefore think through their maneuver. Decide whether in the X metres before the junction if they can overtake and turn before you get there or just wait behind you and turn when you pass.

If you are in a segregated track, it appears you are more likely to be ignored and a vehicle turns across you or into you, with luck you can avoid it but maybe you can't.

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

You pay motor tax on two cars, lifestyle choice, use public transport, or (dare I say it, of course I'll dare ) take a taxi, having paid motor tax on two cars doesn't give you twice as much right to the road, and paying motor tax on two cars still doesn't translate to having paid anything for the privilege to cycle on the roads

You ultimately don't pay fund the motor tax fund as it's written off as an expense.

Therefore Does this give no right to be on the road ?

And you conveniently ignore the fact that the road infrastructure is funded by all sorts of taxes, and grants from the EU.

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

I pay motor tax on two cars, I already told you that, which I don't claim back from the state. My motor tax stays within the state coffers, as well as my general VAT, my PAYE, tax and VAT I pay on services I use during my business, VAT I paid on my bike, bike related products, running clothing, and on and on. All my business comes from outside of the country too, I don't draw it from within the state.

You're really grasping at straws to make any sort of cohesive argument. You have failed to demonstrate why this entitles you to use the road any more than someone on a bike. You admitted yourself your motor tax can be claimed back as an expense, therefore not going towards the infrastructure. You're far from the only person in the country to pay tax, or have business costs, on any other outgoings you have as part of your every day business. Are you implying cyclists don't work or something ?

I can only assume at this stage you're purposely ignoring the fact that cyclists are entitled to be on the road as much as you are, using your very own logic which is based on how much tax is paid.

And as for cyclists who cycle to work to pick up a bus they drive for a living, they must be royalty to you.

Reply to your edited bit, as a cyclist no you don't work therefore you have little contributory value to society as a whole, maybe you cycle to a job where you contribute to society such as a teacher, brain surgeon, road sweeper or whatever, I'd even give working in a bike shop as being contributory but the cycling bit it self, nah, definitely parasitic

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

You ultimately don't pay fund the motor tax fund as it's written off as an expense.

Therefore Does this give no right to be on the road ?

And you conveniently ignore the fact that the road infrastructure is funded by all sorts of taxes, and grants from the EU.

Sorry, where did I say I pay no MTF, I said it's a business deductible, as a business deductible it still gets paid, you don't understand profit and loss very well do you?

beauf

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

It does nothing to encourage cycling...

The stats suggest otherwise.

I accept your point about re-enforcing negativity. I think the only way to combat that really is weight of numbers. So its a circular argument.

steamengine

CramCycle wrote: »

Have to agree with you there, more money does need to be spent on public transport. Trains, buses and trams, the better these run, the less congestion we should see over time as more people turn to them. Pearse St. is a great example, they have gotten rid of one lane of traffic from half of the street to accomodate more PT and it seems to have made no difference to traffic times for non PT vehicles.

A great idea and one to be promoted more. No idea what this has to do with a theory test though.

Like I have said many times before, make it part of the curriculum at NS level, make it a subject or mandatory course at JC level, easier, more beneficial as it captures everyone at a young age before bad habits fully form, educates peds, cyclists and future motorists.

Even though some are not in agreement with a theory test, there is a meeting of minds that courses would be very useful, starting at primary school level, including both practice and theory. It's all to the good really, at the end of the day.

I live close to a primary school and some kids are driven who live less than a five minutes walk away. In my day we cycled, as the only other option was walking - Feck that.

Plus as kids our bikes opened up a whole new world, heading off for 15-20 mile trips at 9/10 years of age, was no bother to us at all.

Tenzor07

Spook_ie wrote: »

Reply to your edited bit, as a cyclist no you don't work therefore you have little contributory value to society as a whole, maybe you cycle to a job where you contribute to society such as a teacher, brain surgeon, road sweeper or whatever, I'd even give working in a bike shop as being contributory but the cycling bit it self, nah, definitely parasitic

Ha! Classic! Will there be some new material coming out any time soon?

Chips Lovell

beauf wrote: »

The stats suggest otherwise.

I'm not so sure of that. Don't have a massive amount of time to go into it now, but for example, one of the studies linked to there, the Copenhagen one, didn't actually find that overall numbers increased.

beauf

I did say "suggest" and linked both sides for balance.

Chips Lovell

Yes, in fairness you did. There's a lot of debate and a dizzying number of factors to consider.

Spook_ie

You lot from over on the cycling forum, see this title

boards.ie > Topics > Social & Fun > After Hours

Go and take it back where it belongs, talking about segregated facilities and that sort of thing

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

Reply to your edited bit, as a cyclist no you don't work therefore you have little contributory value to society as a whole, maybe you cycle to a job where you contribute to society such as a teacher, brain surgeon, road sweeper or whatever, I'd even give working in a bike shop as being contributory but the cycling bit it self, nah, definitely parasitic

This comment is hilarious, and I can only assume it's a wind up in jest.

Of the 10,000 that cycle into Dublin city daily, http://irishcycle.com/2015/04/13/10000-people-on-bicycles-crossing-dublins-canals-in-morning-rush-hour/, I would suspect a lot of these are in gainful employment. A few students as well, but a huge proportion of people in jobs.

Boom_Bap

Spook_ie wrote: »

You lot from over on the cycling forum, see this title

boards.ie > Topics > Social & Fun > After Hours

Go and take it back where it belongs, talking about segregated facilities and that sort of thing

You there -> stop back seat modding

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

This comment is hilarious, and I can only assume it's a wind up in jest.

Of the 10,000 that cycle into Dublin city daily, http://irishcycle.com/2015/04/13/10000-people-on-bicycles-crossing-dublins-canals-in-morning-rush-hour/, I would suspect a lot of these are in gainful employment. A few students as well, but a huge proportion of people in jobs.

No it's perfectly serious, what actual contribution does the commuting side contribute, unlike the rickshaw lads who actually produce a contribution by their cycling efforts, your actual cycling efforts produce zilch, nada, nothing that couldn't be obtained by walking or visiting a gym. I'd ask the same question of anyone that doesn't use public transport

Spook_ie

Boom_Bap wrote: »

You there -> stop back seat modding

Sorry for a moment there I thought I wee riding on a tandem

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

No it's perfectly serious, what actual contribution does the commuting side contribute, unlike the rickshaw lads who actually produce a contribution by their cycling efforts, your actual cycling efforts produce zilch, nada, nothing that couldn't be obtained by walking or visiting a gym. I'd ask the same question of anyone that doesn't use public transport

Wait, we're expected to earn while we cycle to and from work? How does that work - maybe I'll give one of the neighbours a cross bar into town. Could be a nice little earner.

As opposed to costing the economy billions (1% of GDP) that traffic jams bring.http://www.itraffic.ie/MainProductsGov.html

So it's back in the car then to contribute to the economic effort I guess. ho hum.

CramCycle

Spook_ie wrote: »

No it's perfectly serious, what actual contribution does the commuting side contribute, unlike the rickshaw lads who actually produce a contribution by their cycling efforts, your actual cycling efforts produce zilch, nada, nothing that couldn't be obtained by walking or visiting a gym. I'd ask the same question of anyone that doesn't use public transport

From personal experience, the days I cycle in, I am more productive, hit the ground running so to speak, haven't the knees for walking or running long distance although my brother in law does, covers a 18km round trip almost daily by running, runs his own company in town.

My cycling contributes me being out of traffic and not annoying other motorists, it makes me more productive at work therefore contributing to the economy, it is good for physical and mental health which in the long run means I should cost less than the current average person living in Dublin to the exchequer. Overall, my cycling probably benefits the economy a nice few euro a year. It certainly would be a lot less of a contribution from me if I used my car or PT most of the time.

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Wait, we're expected to earn while we cycle to and from work? How does that work - maybe I'll give one of the neighbours a cross bar into town. Could be a nice little earner.

As opposed to costing the economy billions (1% of GDP) that traffic jams bring.http://www.itraffic.ie/MainProductsGov.html

So it's back in the car then to contribute to the economic effort I guess. ho hum.

Would be 100% better for the economy if you did give him a crossie, you really do not understand that commuting ( unless on public transport ) isn't particularly productive.

The billions cost to the economy would be slashed if everyone were to avail of public transport.

this

So it's back in the car then to contribute to the economic effort I guess. ho hum

is just so revealing of your nature that you immediately drop down to commuting by car rather than commuting by public transport