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

StewartGriffin

seamus wrote: »

Pedestrians are the ones doing all the dying on the roads and yet I am the one who needs to "get real".

I have no idea what you are talking about here, Seamus. You sound a bit hysterical.

RainyDay wrote: »

So it's not going to save lives or reduce injuries. It's not going to change behaviour. It is purely for academic benefit - to make you feel better about cyclists.

How about we go the other way? How about you have a look over the daily and weekly reports of deaths on our road, and come up with 1 case where a cyclist caused the death of another person over the last 10 years or so.

You have not outlined any benefit that will arise from your proposed theory test.

So just so we're clear, if somebody cuts off your right arm, and also makes a small cut on your left thumb, you want the medics to give equal, fair attention to both injuries at the same time - right? You don't want them to focus on the more serious injury at all, because it's not some kind of content between your thurm and your arm.

It's about education, it's not the test but the study that will have to be done to pass the test. Educated people behave differently to uneducated people.

Bringing up individual cases where someone has been killed on the road is not a good idea in a casual forum like this.

How about the doctor treats both injuries? You're the guy saying "No, No, No, leave the thumb, let it bleed away." Who told you we can't treat both?

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, I was confused. I see where you are now. So to get back to your question: "Are there any definitive reports on cyclist injuries and deaths? [...] it doesn't state who was at fault and even though giving the details of vehicle manoeuvres at the time of collision, it states "there was insufficient information available to report on the manoeuvres taken by cyclists at the time of the collision."

Cyclist deaths are widely reported in the media, at the time that the incident happens and when the coroner's inquest eventually takes place. Cyclist injuries aren't generally reported.

And yet it is rarely reported as to who was at fault.

RainyDay wrote: »

There is no evidence anywhere of cyclist actions being a factor in the 200-ish road deaths of people other than cyclists each year.

Again, this isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about incidents where a cyclist has been injured or killed.

RainyDay wrote: »

No, it's not 44% of the 'focus group'. It is 44% of 'where the purpose was stated'. 45% didn't state the purpose, so it is 44% of 55%, which is 24%.

No. Of the incidents, it is know that the journey purpose off 44% was leisure. 45% was not stated and 11% was traveling to or from work/home/school. Of the cases where a journey was stated, 80% was leisure.

Tenzor07

smash wrote: »

And yet it is rarely reported as to who was at fault.

Again, this isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about incidents where a cyclist has been injured or killed.

No. Of the incidents, it is know that the journey purpose off 44% was leisure. 45% was not stated and 11% was traveling to or from work/home/school. Of the cases where a journey was stated, 80% was leisure.

Jeeezee....Get a room!

roadrunner16

StewartGriffin wrote: »

A theory test isn't about juggling death or injury stats, it's about ensuring all road users are educated to a certain standard regarding the rules and etiquette of sharing a road with other people.

Fair point people

still need to be educated if they want to use the roads, but the statistics clearly point that before educating one of the less deadly road users the more dangerous ones need to be re educated.

RainyDay

StewartGriffin wrote: »

It's about education, it's not the test but the study that will have to be done to pass the test. Educated people behave differently to uneducated people.

Why would you think that? Look at all the crappy driving on the roads by 'educated people'. Why would you expect it to be different for cyclists?

StewartGriffin wrote: »

How about the doctor treats both injuries? You're the guy saying "No, No, No, leave the thumb, let it bleed away." Who told you we can't treat both?

He has only one pair of hands and one pair of eyes. Which of your wounds do you want him to treat first - the one that will kill you or the one that won't kill you?

I know you're not really so dumb as to not understand the idea of prioritisation.

smash wrote: »

And yet it is rarely reported as to who was at fault.

Again, this isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about incidents where a cyclist has been injured or killed.

Incidents where cyclists are killed are widely reported. There are very, very few incidents where a coroner or a judge has blamed a cyclist.

But hey, feel free to keep spreading FUD about what might have happened, despite a complete absence of any evidence.

smash wrote: »

No. Of the incidents, it is know that the journey purpose off 44% was leisure. 45% was not stated and 11% was traveling to or from work/home/school. Of the cases where a journey was stated, 80% was leisure.

THat's not what the text says. It says fairly clearly "Where the purpose was stated, over 4 in 10 cyclists (44%) stated that they were cycling for leisure purposes when the collision occurred" - so that is 44% of 55% = 24%.

The Dark Side

Yesterday evening on Pearse Street I saw two cyclists pass through a red light during the pedestrian cycle (no pun intended).

At the top of the queue on the opposite side was a Guard on a motorbike. He just watched them sail through.

Doesn't really matter about theory tests - the cyclists knew they were breaking the law.
It doesn't even matter about the law if it's not enforced.

The culture here is the problem.

I'd imagine it will take a couple few dozen cyclists getting mowed down while braking the lights before anything is actually done about it.

ThisRegard

The Dark Side wrote: »

Yesterday evening on Pearse Street I saw two cyclists pass through a red light during the pedestrian cycle (no pun intended).

Walk up Pearse Street and count how many people drive through the various lights there, and illegally use the bus only part right by the front of the garda station. Also watch how many taxis turn the driving lane to go around by the quays into an additional line to skip ahead and queue to go by the garda station, thereby blocking one lane.

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Incidents where cyclists are killed are widely reported. There are very, very few incidents where a coroner or a judge has blamed a cyclist.

But hey, feel free to keep spreading FUD about what might have happened, despite a complete absence of any evidence.

I'm not spreading anything, I'm asking for reports which seem to be non existent. Even when you say "very few incidents where a coroner or a judge has blamed a cyclist" then it should be in a report, no?

RainyDay wrote: »

THat's not what the text says. It says fairly clearly "Where the purpose was stated, over 4 in 10 cyclists (44%) stated that they were cycling for leisure purposes when the collision occurred" - so that is 44% of 55% = 24%.

Yet the graph clearly shows 44% total, not 44% of the stated purpose of the journey.

[Deleted User]

The Dark Side wrote: »

Yesterday evening on Pearse Street I saw two cyclists pass through a red light during the pedestrian cycle (no pun intended).

At the top of the queue on the opposite side was a Guard on a motorbike. He just watched them sail through.

Doesn't really matter about theory tests - the cyclists knew they were breaking the law.
It doesn't even matter about the law if it's not enforced.

The culture here is the problem.

I'd imagine it will take a couple few dozen cyclists getting mowed down while braking the lights before anything is actually done about it.

Cyclists breaking red lights is an issue but if it is so dangerous then where are the expected high number of deaths and injuries related to this activity?
Are they just not being reported or is the danger perhaps being slightly over stated?

Knasher

The Dark Side wrote: »

I'd imagine it will take a couple few dozen cyclists getting mowed down while braking the lights before anything is actually done about it.

I really think the greenwave will encourage people to obey the traffic lights, and if so I hope to see it rolled out to other cycle lanes and beyond Dublin.

RainyDay

The Dark Side wrote: »

Yesterday evening on Pearse Street I saw two cyclists pass through a red light during the pedestrian cycle (no pun intended).

At the top of the queue on the opposite side was a Guard on a motorbike. He just watched them sail through.

Doesn't really matter about theory tests - the cyclists knew they were breaking the law.
It doesn't even matter about the law if it's not enforced.

The culture here is the problem.

I'd imagine it will take a couple few dozen cyclists getting mowed down while braking the lights before anything is actually done about it.

And yet, there have been no reported cases in living history of a cyclist 'getting mowed down while breaking the lights'. I have to wonder how many drivers zipped through the red light at the same time - usually 2 or 3 in my experience. Which do you think is more dangerous?

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

Yet the graph clearly shows 44% total, not 44% of the stated purpose of the journey.

You're right, the graph doesn't match the text.

smash wrote: »

I'm not spreading anything, I'm asking for reports which seem to be non existent. Even when you say "very few incidents where a coroner or a judge has blamed a cyclist" then it should be in a report, no?

You're right, the reports of cyclists causing incidents are non-existent. Now I wonder why that might be???

StewartGriffin

RainyDay wrote: »

Why would you think that? Look at all the crappy driving on the roads by 'educated people'. Why would you expect it to be different for cyclists?

He has only one pair of hands and one pair of eyes. Which of your wounds do you want him to treat first - the one that will kill you or the one that won't kill you?

I know you're not really so dumb as to not understand the idea of prioritisation.

You are such a simple soul Rainy.

The theory test won't fix everything like a magic fairy spell. It won't make all car drivers great drivers, but it will make some better than they had been before it. Hence it is worthwhile. And that is why it will be worthwhile for Cyclists too.

What is this melodramatic scenario you have invented about a doctor treating your wounds at the side of the road and you having to choose which one he bandages up?? Sounds like some strange teenage fantasy.
There was a lot of plane crashes last year, should we shelve all initiatives for road safety while we prioritize the air traffic?

What we're talking about here is introducing a theory test for Cyclists, because its important everyone is educated on the correct rules of our roads.

smash

The Dark Side wrote: »

I'd imagine it will take a couple few dozen cyclists getting mowed down while braking the lights before anything is actually done about it.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Cyclists breaking red lights is an issue but if it is so dangerous then where are the expected high number of deaths and injuries related to this activity?
Are they just not being reported or is the danger perhaps being slightly over stated?

2012 cyclist injuries by junction type:
T Junction 52%
Crossroads 24%
Roundabout 18%
Complex Junction 4%
Y Junction 2%

2012 cyclist injuries by manoeuvres of drivers involved:
Turning Right 21%
Turning Left 15%
Exiting / Entering 7%
Taking Avoidance Action 4%
Attempting to Overtake 2%
Changing Lanes 1%
Reversing 1%
Other 50%

Note: there was insufficient information available to report on the manoeuvres taken by cyclists at the time of the collision.

Do you reckon many of these statistics involved a cyclist breaking a light?

CramCycle

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Are they just not being reported or is the danger perhaps being slightly over stated?

It is an issue but it is far from a major problem and the relative danger compared to all other potential dangers on the road is probably quite small, the state/quality of footpaths is probably a bigger danger to pedestrians.

This said, I don't think it should be tolerated, but I am smart enough to know the idea of a theory test to license cyclists is beyond idiotic as well for the several reasons put forward, multiple times.

A far simpler, and more effective solution, is enforcement of the RTA through FPNs, this is almost here and possibly will be expanded upon.

I am not even bothered explaining again why this makes more sense.

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

And yet, there have been no reported cases in living history of a cyclist 'getting mowed down while breaking the lights'.

Just stop...
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/injured-cyclist-gets-driving-ban-for-breaking-red-light-26661405.html

Oh and here's a story to counteract your previous claim that there's no reports of cyclists injuring people:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/blind-man-mowed-down-by-cyclists-who-consistently-break-traffic-lights-29833333.html

And this guy is lucky he didn't kill himself: http://thedailyedge.thejournal.ie/cyclist-runs-red-light-2122079-May2015/

wtlltw

RainyDay wrote: »

And yet, there have been no reported cases in living history of a cyclist 'getting mowed down while breaking the lights'. I have to wonder how many drivers zipped through the red light at the same time - usually 2 or 3 in my experience. Which do you think is more dangerous?

Well my friend was involved in accident with a cyclist who jumped the lights well after they were red. Happened about 2-3 years ago and the cyclist ended up breaking her arm. The worst part about it all was that my friend felt like he was the guilty party (especially with people stopping and gawping at the aftermath without knowing what had actually happened) when the accident could have been avoided if the cyclist had just stopped at the lights. All road users should be responsible for their actions

ThisRegard

smash wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/blind-man-mowed-down-by-cyclists-who-consistently-break-traffic-lights-29833333.html

LOL, a story the Indo lifted directly from Liveline, ye can't argue against that. You gotta love the headline, "Blind man mowed down by cyclists who consistently (at least they're consistent so should be easy to catch) break red lights". He's forbidden from crossing ?

And read this nonsense

another caller to Liveline said cyclists using the Dublin Bikes scheme are like kamikaze cyclists, and they do not use hi-visibility materials or helmets.

Top class journalism, as usual, from the Indo.

seamus

StewartGriffin wrote: »

I have no idea what you are talking about here

That seems pretty clear.

You are dead set on claiming that cyclists need to do a theory test because they mix with traffic and therefore it is essential to "etiquette" to know those rules.
But pedestrians don't need to do any kind of test, presumably "just because". And I need to "get real" for even suggesting it.

Even though pedestrians are the largest single group of people suffering deaths and injuries on our roads, and they interact with the road network in a manner that results in far more conflict than general road users.

The primary issue of course here is administration. Not that it's a bad idea in general, but whether the effort involved justifies the tangible outcome at the end. In an ideal world almost every child would walk or cycle to school (and parents would have to pay to get their car within 500m of the school gates) and roadcraft would be a core part of our education system.

But in the absence of that, education needs to be targetted where the expense and effort justifies the outcome. And adding red tape to cycling doesn't. In fact our enforcement rates are so low precisely because of the amount of red tape required to enforce the rules.

Remove the enforcement red tape, behaviour will improve.

The exact same process has worked for motorists - penalty points, roadside breathtesting and random checkpoints. Enforcing the laws became easier and less tied up with red tape, and our road safety record is at its best point in the history of the state.

CramCycle

seamus wrote: »

The primary issue of course here is administration. Not that it's a bad idea in general, but whether the effort involved justifies the tangible outcome at the end. In an ideal world almost every child would walk or cycle to school (and parents would have to pay to get their car within 500m of the school gates) and roadcraft would be a core part of our education system.

Precisely, road education should be mandatory for all school children, while some claim it is, I have yet to hear of any of my nieces/nephews etc. having to do it yet. A minimum competence level should be built up at a young age. The peds/cyclists/motorists simulation in the playground is a great start.

But the absence of that, education needs to be targetted where the expense justifies the outcome. And adding red tape to cycling doesn't. In fact our enforcement rates are so low precisely because of the amount of red tape required to enforce the rules.

Again, national school and Junior Cert level. BEhaviour is viral, as children move through the system, not only do they increase the base of people with a good grounding, they also spread their behaviour to others, talking to parents about what is acceptable, knowing kids, criticising parents who do wrong, my own daughter as she grew up used to ask why people done X, Y and Z even though I had told and shown her those things were illegal and dangerous. If enough children think certain behaviours are negative, as time progresses, society will view them as unacceptable.

At the minute, all evidence, despite what all the posters on boards think, indicate that poor behaviour by cyclists and motorists alike is completely acceptable, otherwise it would not be done at the levels it is done.

Remove the enforcement red tape, behaviour will improve.

Along with education of youth, this will be the other spear in the attack (the easier and quicker one) against poor road behaviour and use, you can't teach a monkey that something is wrong but you can teach them that they will be punished if they do, it becomes the norm not to break the rules, and as new monkeys enter the group, they don't break the rules because no one else does.

[Deleted User]

smash wrote: »

Do you reckon many of these statistics involved a cyclist breaking a light?

Do you?

There really isn't enough evidence to say yes or no. The left turning vehicles though for example is highly unlikely to be caused by red light breaking cyclists unless the motorist is also breaking the lights.

RainyDay

StewartGriffin wrote: »

You are such a simple soul Rainy.

The theory test won't fix everything like a magic fairy spell. It won't make all car drivers great drivers, but it will make some better than they had been before it. Hence it is worthwhile. And that is why it will be worthwhile for Cyclists too.

What we're talking about here is introducing a theory test for Cyclists, because its important everyone is educated on the correct rules of our roads.

Perhaps we could short-cut the discussion by clarifying one point. You repeating 'this will work' and 'this will make some better' doesn't persuade me in the slightest. Generally, for public policy changes, we need a slightly higher standard that the opinion of a bloke on a bulletin board. We need some compelling evidence. In the light of the fairly stark evidence about the standard of driving on our roads by drivers who have passed their theory test, you really need to come up with something better than repetition.

StewartGriffin wrote: »

There was a lot of plane crashes last year, should we shelve all initiatives for road safety while we prioritize the air traffic?

Do we have the same policy makers, regulator and enforcement resources working with both road safety and air traffic?

No, so there is no prioritisation issue here.

And btw, there weren't a whole lot of plane crashes in Ireland last year.

StewartGriffin wrote: »

What is this melodramatic scenario you have invented about a doctor treating your wounds at the side of the road and you having to choose which one he bandages up?? Sounds like some strange teenage fantasy.

Yes, it was a bit melodramatic all right. In my defence, I was a bit taken aback at having to explain such a basic concept as prioritisation and opportunity cost. I thought that these were generally well understood concepts, so it was the best I could come up with at short notice.

smash wrote: »

Just stop...
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/injured-cyclist-gets-driving-ban-for-breaking-red-light-26661405.html

Did you actually read the story? He got a broken arm. He wasn't killed - he wasn't 'mowed down'. He broke his arm. You get worse on an U.14s hurling match most Saturdays. Maybe all the hurlers should do mandatory theory tests too?

smash wrote: »

Oh and here's a story to counteract your previous claim that there's no reports of cyclists injuring people:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/blind-man-mowed-down-by-cyclists-who-consistently-break-traffic-lights-29833333.html

Liveline? Ah come on. And injured? He was 'in pain' afterwards - not exactly life-threatening stuff. Don't get me wrong - it is completely despicable that a blind man got hit by cyclists. But if this is the best you can come up with against 200+ deaths and hospitals full of maimed and injured, you're starting to get my point - right?

smash wrote: »

And this guy is lucky he didn't kill himself: http://thedailyedge.thejournal.ie/cyclist-runs-red-light-2122079-May2015/

You noticed it was a big red bus, right? And you noticed him getting up and walking away, right? Again, don't get me wrong - it's a very silly move by the cyclist - but it doesn't exactly stand up well against 200+ killed and thousands of injuries.

PS Ever wonder about why TheJournal don't highlight the large number of close shaves involving car drivers that are published to YouTube every day? I wonder why....

smash

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Do you?

There really isn't enough evidence to say yes or no. The left turning vehicles though for example is highly unlikely to be caused by red light breaking cyclists unless the motorist is also breaking the lights.

Left turning vehicle would be a motorist who didn't check their mirrors, but like you said with the other causes there's no statistics on who's at fault and there really should be.

@RainyDay I guess it doesn't really what I put in front of you because you'll change the goal posts. First it was cyclists causing injury and now you're dismissing the injuries as insignificant. Then you're stating that although a cyclist broke a light and hit a bus it doesn't matter because he walked away from it. And again you're bringing everything back to motorists causing 200+ deaths even though we are specifically discussing cyclists. As if what a cyclist does just doesn't matter because motorists do worse.

rubadub

The Dark Side wrote: »

Yesterday evening on Pearse Street I saw two cyclists pass through a red light during the pedestrian cycle (no pun intended).

At the top of the queue on the opposite side was a Guard on a motorbike. He just watched them sail through.

Thats nothing, I have seen groups of 40 or so roadusers breaking the law in dublin city with several gardai watching who were on foot and did nothing. Being on foot they could have got them a lot easier, a garda on a bike might have different priorities.

A lot of the time roadusers are breaking laws in a pretty benign way, the law was made to stop certain actions happening, often the action people are doing is not really what the law intended to prevent and so sensible gardai will turn a blind eye.

If the lights were broken and people were just doing their own thing nobody would bat an eyelid at some of the actions being done by various roadusers -which would be illegal if lights were working. -actually I wondered what the legal stance is when you come up to a set of broken traffic lights.

I have actually had garda give me what was seemingly a nod of approval while breaking the law, they obviously know why I was doing it and appreciated it.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

@RainyDay I guess it doesn't really what I put in front of you because you'll change the goal posts. First it was cyclists causing injury and now you're dismissing the injuries as insignificant. Then you're stating that although a cyclist broke a light and hit a bus it doesn't matter because he walked away from it. .

My main point about the bus was that it was red - London, not Dublin. I'm sure that situation has happened in Dublin of course. And I'm sure cyclists in Ireland have caused some injuries from time to time.

But in the overall context of 200+ deaths from motor vehicles, it is is insignificant.

smash wrote: »

As if what a cyclist does just doesn't matter because motorists do worse.

Yep, that's pretty much it, in a nutshell.

Any traffic-related initiatives will take time from legislators, policy makers, regulators and enforcers. There is only a limited amount of time available. So do we want to prioritise the minor issue or the major issue?

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

My main point about the bus was that it was red - London, not Dublin. I'm sure that situation has happened in Dublin of course. And I'm sure cyclists in Ireland have caused some injuries from time to time.

But in the overall context of 200+ deaths from motor vehicles, it is is insignificant.

Yep, that's pretty much it, in a nutshell.

Any traffic-related initiatives will take time from legislators, policy makers, regulators and enforcers. There is only a limited amount of time available. So do we want to prioritise the minor issue or the major issue?

So statistics or stories from outside of Ireland don't matter either, because they don't fit your agenda. Not worth you reading this then: http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/57065/cyclists-almost-likely-injure-pedestrians-cars

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

So statistics or stories from outside of Ireland don't matter either, because they don't fit your agenda. Not worth you reading this then: http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/57065/cyclists-almost-likely-injure-pedestrians-cars

Did you actually read the article you linked to?

While cars kill five times more pedestrians than bicycles

@BloomingCyclist @thetimes @Velocentric Yeah, all you really need to know are pedestrians killed by cyclists = 1, peds killed by cars = 253

The Times readily acknowledges that cars are responsible for a far higher number of deaths and serious injuries "in absolute terms".
One pedestrian was killed by a cyclist and 78 were seriously injured in 2012. At the same time, 253 pedestrians were killed by drivers in urban areas and 4,426 were seriously injured.

You're pretty much doing my job for me. There has not been a case of a pedestrian killed by a cyclist in Ireland in ten+ years. While 2,000+ people have been killed by motorists.

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Did you actually read the article you linked to?

You're pretty much doing my job for me. There has not been a case of a pedestrian killed by a cyclist in Ireland in ten+ years. While 2,000+ people have been killed by motorists.

I like how you omitted the statistics based on distance traveled. Which was the point of the article.

CramCycle

smash wrote: »

I like how you omitted the statistics based on distance traveled. Which was the point of the article.

Which in of itself is skewing the statistics, as in the majority of roads cyclists use, there are pedestrians nearby or on them, whereas motorists use many roads in the UK that pedestrians do not have access to including motorways, ring roads, tunnels. How would the stats change if you removed the distance covered on motorways?

rubadub

Also

Most collisions occur "when pedestrians step out into the road without seeing or hearing a cyclist"

I expect some of that would be illegally "jaywalking", and it should be phrased "without checking to see or hear if it was safe".

I would like to see the pedestrian on pedestrian death toll per billion km too, and pedestrian on cyclist and motorists (swerving to avoid etc).

Last time I was injured was due to a pedestrian illegally crossing a road who knocked me off my bike. He strolled off not a bother on him, he barely faltered, I was badly scraped limping away. I have had several close calls with pedestrians like this.