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

Grandpa Hassan

MadDog76 wrote: »

The law can always be made compulsory ........ that's the point in having laws!

But not much good if it's unenforcable. Which it is. Unless you are looking at applying it only within some arbitrary city limit. Or should it apply equally to an 80 year old farmer in Offaly who cycles a mile for a guiness on a Saturday night? And if not where do you draw the line? And scrapping Dublin bikes of course (or criminalising tourists). Which will never happen

wexandproud

MadDog76 wrote: »

Eh ........ that's your reply? :rolleyes:

Ok ........ well done on the yellow box junction thingy but can we move on from a moot point at this stage ........... wish I'd never mentioned them!!

you can roll eyes all ya want , but you posed the question if any cyclists knew or even read the rotr. my post was a reply to it

LadyFenghuang

MadDog76 wrote: »

The law can always be made compulsory ........ that's the point in having laws!

Love is the law baby!

No I would be all for cyclists having to do a course and a theory and practical test. Hear me out. A LOT of cyclists are YOUNG people. We need to protect them by doing more than making them wear helmets. I cycled to secondary school a lot and for the first two years of college. I came off hard twice. Once it was no one's fault. The road was LITERALLY in bits. There was more hole than road.

And that is another issue.Ireland has specific ahem challenges for both motorists and cyclists. FOR YEARS there was a road near me which when they put cycle paths in no two cars could pass going the opposite direction without going into the paths because they never widened the road to accommodate the two modes of transport. It was local common knowledge, and motorists would beep to give warning of traffic. The most terrible thing was though it was right by two schools. So there were a lot of young cyclists.

I think having a course and theory test in schools would be a great idea.

MadDog76

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

You'd lose nothing. But it couldn't be compulsory. Would be impossible to legislate for.

Maybe attendance at a cycle theory day should be a mandatory punishment for someone pulled over by the Gardai for breaking the rules.

The law can always be made compulsory ........ that's the point in having laws!

Grandpa Hassan

MadDog76 wrote: »

What do we stand to lose by cyclists being forced, in some way, to prove that they've at least read the Rules of the Road ........ even once!?!

Why should motorists have to do a Theory Test in order to share the road with people who may never have even heard of a yellow box junction?!?

You'd lose nothing. But it couldn't be compulsory. Would be impossible to legislate for.

Maybe attendance at a cycle theory day should be a mandatory punishment for someone pulled over by the Gardai for breaking the rules.

MadDog76

wexandproud wrote: »

im a cyclist and i know what the yellow box is and what its for and how to use them but its still motorists who block them , maby they dont know

Eh ........ that's your reply?

:rolleyes:

Ok ........ well done on the yellow box junction thingy but can we move on from a moot point at this stage ........... wish I'd never mentioned them!!

wexandproud

MadDog76 wrote: »

14 years ago actually ........... anyway what's your point?

We didn't always use seatbelts in cars ......... it used to be acceptable to drink & drive ........ times have changed.

Btw the "yellow box junction" reference in my post wasn't actually about "yellow box junctions"! It was to highlight the fact that we don't know for certain if a cyclist (any cyclist) has even read the Rules of the Road.

im a cyclist and i know what the yellow box is and what its for and how to use them but its still motorists who block them , maby they dont know

MadDog76

check_six wrote: »

The Theory Test has only existed for 9-10 years. There are a lot of people out there who did a driving test which didn't involve going anywhere near a yellow box junction. There are a lot of people out there who never did a driving test full stop and still got a licence.

You're not going to block a yellow box junction with a bike, but you just might just manage it with a car.

14 years ago actually ........... anyway what's your point?

We didn't always use seatbelts in cars ......... it used to be acceptable to drink & drive ........ times have changed.

Btw the "yellow box junction" reference in my post wasn't actually about "yellow box junctions"!

It was to highlight the fact that we don't know for certain if a cyclist (any cyclist) has even read the Rules of the Road.

MadDog76

CramCycle wrote: »

According to my morning commute it is where the last car through the red light sits until they have successfully blocked off crossing traffic and the light sequence goes around again :pac:

Did you see the red light as you whizzed through it? :P

wexandproud

CramCycle wrote: »

According to my morning commute it is where the last car through the red light sits until they have successfully blocked off crossing traffic and the light sequence goes around again :pac:

stopping in the box is usually accompanied with various forms of hand waving to indicate its not my fault ... the driver in front stopped its his fault ...this is usually done with a stupid grin on their face

Pinch Flat

CramCycle wrote: »

According to my morning commute it is where the last car through the red light sits until they have successfully blocked off crossing traffic and the light sequence goes around again :pac:

I might need to read the ROR again, I thought with yellow boxes the challenge was to see how many cars you can fit in them?

check_six

MadDog76 wrote: »

Why should motorists have to do a Theory Test in order to share the road with people who may never have even heard of a yellow box junction?!?

The Theory Test has only existed for 9-10 years. There are a lot of people out there who did a driving test which didn't involve going anywhere near a yellow box junction. There are a lot of people out there who never did a driving test full stop and still got a licence.

You're not going to block a yellow box junction with a bike, but you just might just manage it with a car.

CramCycle

MadDog76 wrote: »

What do we stand to lose by cyclists being forced, in some way, to prove that they've at least read the Rules of the Road ........ even once!?!

Why should motorists have to do a Theory Test in order to share the road with people who may never have even heard of a yellow box junction?!?

According to my morning commute it is where the last car through the red light sits until they have successfully blocked off crossing traffic and the light sequence goes around again :pac:

wexandproud

MadDog76 wrote: »

What do we stand to lose by cyclists being forced, in some way, to prove that they've at least read the Rules of the Road ........ even once!?!

Why should motorists have to do a Theory Test in order to share the road with people who may never have even heard of a yellow box junction?!?

we would loose nothing but it would not necessarily improve the situation , as the ones who act the bo##ocks would do so any way, and this point is proven by the behaviour of motorists who are supposed to know the rules of the road .

MadDog76

wexandproud wrote: »

what would be gained by it , if you only read the various threads about cyclists behaviour and you would realise that most motorists who comment on there dont have a basic grasp of the rules of the road . Of course their are cyclists who ignore the rules , the same as their are motorist who choose to do the same but their is an alarming amount of motorist dont even know the rules.

What do we stand to lose by cyclists being forced, in some way, to prove that they've at least read the Rules of the Road ........ even once!?!

Why should motorists have to do a Theory Test in order to share the road with people who may never have even heard of a yellow box junction?!?

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

Oh Jesus Christ... I know what taxes pay for, my comment was in relation to the part of your taxes that goes towards road infrastructure. That part of you taxes is used solely for development and maintenance, no for road usage! Clear?

Nope - completely unclear. I really have no idea what point you are trying to make here.

smash wrote: »

I provided you with the legislation that you asked for over and over and I provided you with the meaning of entitled and how I used the phrase in relation to the legislation in that it gives you a right to use your vehicle on a public road. Now leave it out.

I didn't ask for legislation over and over. I asked for evidence of entitlement, which if it existed, would probably be within legislation.

You provided the legislation which showed that there is absolutely no reference to or concept of entitlement relating to motor tax. You also helpfully provided the dictionary definition of entitlement as "a title, right, or claim to something". You correctly pointed out that "Entitlement gives you a right" and that "In order to receive the right to use the vehicle on a public road, you must be compliant with the law" and that "The law states that a vehicle must have a valid motor tax license if it is to be used" - but you still haven't shown any entitlement.

A legal obligation to pay tax does not create an entitlement. There is no entitlement.

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

I've no idea how you worked out that "Your taxes paid solely for road construction and maintenance" - what kind of accounting trick is that?

Oh Jesus Christ... I know what taxes pay for, my comment was in relation to the part of your taxes that goes towards road infrastructure. That part of you taxes is used solely for development and maintenance, no for road usage! Clear?

RainyDay wrote: »

It is helpful that we have clarified that you have absolutely no evidence of any entitlement to use the road arising from payment of motor tax though - thanks for your patience in working through that one.

I provided you with the legislation that you asked for over and over and I provided you with the meaning of entitled and how I used the phrase in relation to the legislation in that it gives you a right to use your vehicle on a public road. Now leave it out.

wexandproud

MadDog76 wrote: »

To answer the Op's question ......... yes, of course cyclists should do a Theory Test ....... obviously.

what would be gained by it , if you only read the various threads about cyclists behaviour and you would realise that most motorists who comment on there dont have a basic grasp of the rules of the road . Of course their are cyclists who ignore the rules , the same as their are motorist who choose to do the same but their is an alarming amount of motorist dont even know the rules.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

I honestly just don't care any more about this whole argument. It's nonsense. This all stemmed from you saying that you paid to use the roads through your taxes. You didn't. Your taxes paid solely for road construction and maintenance.

Yes, we can agree that it's nonsense all right. For the record, I don't think I said that I paid to use the road through my taxes. I did say;
1) I pay tax - motor tax, income tax, CGT, VAT (including bike purchase, repair and accessories)
2) Roads are funded from general taxation

I've no idea how you worked out that "Your taxes paid solely for road construction and maintenance" - what kind of accounting trick is that? Maybe my taxes paid for your hospital bed, or your university lecturer? Or maybe it paid for my road - who knows? The money goes into one pot, and comes out of one pot. Any attribution of what any particular tax goes towards is pure fiction.

It is helpful that we have clarified that you have absolutely no evidence of any entitlement to use the road arising from payment of motor tax though - thanks for your patience in working through that one.

ThisRegard

smash wrote: »

I know.

I mean that the taxes don't purely pay for roads.

smash

ThisRegard wrote: »

They don't.

I know.

ThisRegard

smash wrote: »

I honestly just don't care any more about this whole argument. It's nonsense. This all stemmed from you saying that you paid to use the roads through your taxes. You didn't. Your taxes paid solely for road construction and maintenance.

They don't.

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Not really, no.

Let's just focus on the bolded bit. Yes, I agree with you 100% that the law states that a vehicle must have a valid motor tax license to be used.

Now let's get back to my question - where is the entitlement? An obligation to pay a tax is not an entitlement to use - it is an obligation to pay tax. You're pointing at an apple and telling me it is an orange.

Where is the entitlement (outside of your own imagination, that is)?

I honestly just don't care any more about this whole argument. It's nonsense. This all stemmed from you saying that you paid to use the roads through your taxes. You didn't. Your taxes paid solely for road construction and maintenance.

Timberrrrrrrr

I don't think they should do a theory test but there should definitely be some mandatory road safety classes ( cycling/pedestrian/and motor for older kids) in schools. Start educating them young and hopefully the next generation might be able to show us older folk how it should be done.

MadDog76

To answer the Op's question ......... yes, of course cyclists should do a Theory Test ....... obviously.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

Finance Act 1976, Section 73

73.—(1) Where a vehicle to which this Part applies is used, parked or otherwise kept at any time in a public place, if while the vehicle is being so used, parked or kept there is not fixed to and exhibited on the vehicle in accordance with section 5 (5) of the Act of 1920 a licence which is both issued in respect of the vehicle and is for the time being in force, then the person by whom the vehicle is so used, parked or kept at the time shall be guilty of an offence, and in addition to the person aforesaid, the person (if he is not the person aforesaid) who on the day on which the offence is committed is in relation to the vehicle the relevant person shall also be guilty of an offence.

That good enough for you?

Entitle: to give (a person or thing) a title, right, or claim to something
Entitlement gives you a right. In order to receive the right to use the vehicle on a public road, you must be compliant with the law. The law states that a vehicle must have a valid motor tax license if it is to be used.

Now. Want to drop this?

Not really, no.

Let's just focus on the bolded bit. Yes, I agree with you 100% that the law states that a vehicle must have a valid motor tax license to be used.

Now let's get back to my question - where is the entitlement? An obligation to pay a tax is not an entitlement to use - it is an obligation to pay tax. You're pointing at an apple and telling me it is an orange.

Where is the entitlement (outside of your own imagination, that is)?

CramCycle

smash wrote: »

I never said it's a contract for service. It's a fee for usage rights.

"Liability for motor tax arises when a vehicle is used in a public place/road."
https://www.motortax.ie/OMT/staticContent.do?page=faq

Even the RSA used the word entitled when referring to categories of vehicles a license holder can drive. I've dug no hole.

Your missing their point, if the council closes a road, you can't waltz up with a motor tax disc and say, actually, I am entitled. Or if a Garda stops you from driving along a road and says they are not letting people through, you can't just flash your motor tax disc and tell the Garda to jog on.

You require it to operate said vehicle on a public road or in a public place but you are not entitled to use said public space.

This is just pointless though.

Nothing to do with the thread in general, cyclists are not required to pay motor tax on their vehicle. Therefore there is nothing that makes their use of the road unless they breach the RTA or they are instructed not too be AGS or a council through a closed road order. The same thing for vehicles only they have other requirements.

Cyclists do not have an entitlement to use the road, neither do motorists, neither do cyclists who are motorists, motorists who are cyclists, they have permission to use the roads once certain guidelines are met. For cyclists, these are minimal and less cumbersome than for motorists.

This is for a range of reasons, they cause less damage, hence they draw less attention in regards the imposition of regulation. Motorists, particularly single occupancy vehicles (excluding delivery vehicles, as I know nothing about their benefits but am sure they have loads), cost the economy more in general. The more motorists on the road, the more they cost to maintain. Every crash/collision that results in a death costs the state about 1million euro from my understanding (although someone maybe able to get the exact figure as I read that last year), cyclists re not known for their huge number of deaths on the roads. There are many benefits to the state for keeping cars off the roads in built up areas, and reducing their dependency in more rural areas but since we have become a very car centric country we won't see any shift soon.

MadDog76

scdublin wrote: »

Yes, yes they should.

Saw this and thought of this thread: http://www.theladbible.com/articles/cyclist-gets-instant-karma-after-turning-to-have-a-go-at-driver?utm_source=lboz&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=lboz

Now THAT'S funny!!!!!

Chips Lovell

Regardless of your opinion on the matter, it's such an odd thing to get exercised about since it's completely academic. It's hard to imagine any government either extending motor tax to cover bicycles or banning bicycles from roads.

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Where are these 'usage rights' specified in law?

Finance Act 1976, Section 73

73.—(1) Where a vehicle to which this Part applies is used, parked or otherwise kept at any time in a public place, if while the vehicle is being so used, parked or kept there is not fixed to and exhibited on the vehicle in accordance with section 5 (5) of the Act of 1920 a licence which is both issued in respect of the vehicle and is for the time being in force, then the person by whom the vehicle is so used, parked or kept at the time shall be guilty of an offence, and in addition to the person aforesaid, the person (if he is not the person aforesaid) who on the day on which the offence is committed is in relation to the vehicle the relevant person shall also be guilty of an offence.

That good enough for you?

RainyDay wrote: »

You've hung your hat on this 'entitlement' thing - but we both know that it doesn't exist. There is no legal entitlement. So now you're calling it something else. You can call it Mildred if you like - it still doesn't make it real.

Entitle: to give (a person or thing) a title, right, or claim to something
Entitlement gives you a right. In order to receive the right to use the vehicle on a public road, you must be compliant with the law. The law states that a vehicle must have a valid motor tax license if it is to be used.

Now. Want to drop this?