Cyclists should do a theory test!

smash · 12-06-2015 05:25PM

CramCycle wrote: »

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?

Statistics can be skewed for most agendas. The point is that RainyDay asks for links or figures and then dismisses them and openly admits that it doesn't matter what's put in front of him because figures are higher for motorists, even when it's not who were discussing.

RainyDay · 12-06-2015 05:29PM

smash wrote: »

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

The point of the article was to twist statistics to have a dig at cyclists. That is fairly obvious to anybody. Just like in Ireland, the figures for the UK show that motorists are killing left right and centre, while deaths caused by cyclists are statistically insignficant.

smash wrote: »

because figures are higher for motorists, even when it's not who were discussing.

Don't make me come down there and explain prioritisation and opportunity cost again. Which bit of it are you having trouble grasping?

smash · 12-06-2015 05:35PM

RainyDay wrote: »

Don't make me come down there and explain prioritisation and opportunity cost again. Which bit of it are you having trouble grasping?

Well the issue I have is that we're discussing cyclists. You're going off topic and shouting about motorists. I've stated a few times now that there is no statistic to say who's at fault for the accidents involving cyclists. All I want to know is the percentage of accidents involving cyclists where the cyclist is at fault. But all you want to do is talk about cars.

RainyDay · 12-06-2015 09:36PM

smash wrote: »

Well the issue I have is that we're discussing cyclists. You're going off topic and shouting about motorists. I've stated a few times now that there is no statistic to say who's at fault for the accidents involving cyclists. All I want to know is the percentage of accidents involving cyclists where the cyclist is at fault. But all you want to do is talk about cars.

The issue I have is that we're discussion a theory test for cyclists. Any such road safety measure will take resources away from other road safety initiatives, such as the ones aimed at reducing the death toll caused by motorists.

You're right - I've never seen any statistic to say who's at fault for accident involving cyclists. I can only imagine that the reason why no such statistics exist is that the answer is patently obvious, and doesn't need any research or statistics.

StewartGriffin · 12-06-2015 09:46PM

RainyDay wrote: »

The issue I have is that we're discussion a theory test for cyclists. Any such road safety measure will take resources away from other road safety initiatives, such as the ones aimed at reducing the death toll caused by motorists.

But the issue I have is that I would like to see the majority of cyclists behave better towards other road users.

That applies to motorists and pedestrians, but also to good cyclists, who are possibly the most put out by the behaviour of bad cyclists.

I think a theory test will help this. And I think sooner or later, it will be introduced.

RainyDay · 12-06-2015 10:08PM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

But the issue I have is that I would like to see the majority of cyclists behave better towards other road users.

Fully agree - I'd love to see it happen too. If I had a magic wand that could achieve this without taking resources away from other road safety measures, I'd jump at the chance.

StewartGriffin wrote: »

That applies to motorists and pedestrians, but also to good cyclists, who are possibly the most put out by the behaviour of bad cyclists.

I'm not so sure about this. Most cyclists don't seem to care less about what others do, whether they are cars or bikes or whatever.

StewartGriffin wrote: »

I think a theory test will help this.

Now this is where we disagree. I don't believe that a theory test will have any impact on behaviour at all. Cyclists don't break red lights because they're unsure of the law. They break red lights because they are impatient, or because they've made a considered safety decision to avoid getting bunched up with other cyclists. A theory test isn't going to fix this.

StewartGriffin wrote: »

And I think sooner or later, it will be introduced.

Now this is where we really disagree. There is absolutely no hint of any appetite from government, policy makers, agencies, expert consultants or pretty-much anyone who knows anything about transport for it. If you want to make a case for it, come up with some evidence.

wtlltw · 12-06-2015 10:10PM

RainyDay wrote: »

You're right - I've never seen any statistic to say who's at fault for accident involving cyclists. I can only imagine that the reason why no such statistics exist is that the answer is patently obvious, and doesn't need any research or statistics.

So a cyclist gets knocked down due to their ill informed decision, then to me it is obvious. But likewise if a motorist knocked down a cyclist due their ill informed decision then likewise it's pretty obvious. I get the impression you don't see cyclists making ill informed decisions and that the motorist is always at fault. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post.

RainyDay wrote: »

They break red lights because they are impatient, or because they've made a considered safety decision to avoid getting bunched up with other cyclists

Makes no sense, either obey the rules of the road or own up to the consequences of your actions

RainyDay · 12-06-2015 11:16PM

wtlltw wrote: »

So a cyclist gets knocked down due to their ill informed decision, then to me it is obvious. But likewise if a motorist knocked down a cyclist due their ill informed decision then likewise it's pretty obvious. I get the impression you don't see cyclists making ill informed decisions and that the motorist is always at fault. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post.

You are misunderstanding my post. I see cyclists making bad decisions every day. Most of the time there are no consequences, the odd time there can be a minor consequence. I don't think I've ever seen a major consequence, but it can happen. I don't say 'the motorist is always at fault'.

I do say that I've never seen any credible report of a case where a cyclist caused a major injury to another person in Ireland over the past ten years. If there is such a report from a coroner's report or court case, I'll read it with interest. And over this period, motorists killed three or four thousand people.

wtlltw wrote: »

Makes no sense, either obey the rules of the road or own up to the consequences of your actions

I didn't mention anything about consequences, good, bad or indifferent. But I do hope that those who lecture others about obeying rules of the road NEVER break a speed limit themselves.

wtlltw · 12-06-2015 11:46PM

RainyDay wrote: »

You are misunderstanding my post. I see cyclists making bad decisions every day. Most of the time there are no consequences, the odd time there can be a minor consequence. I don't think I've ever seen a major consequence, but it can happen. I don't say 'the motorist is always at fault'.

I do say that I've never seen any credible report of a case where a cyclist caused a major injury to another person in Ireland over the past ten years. If there is such a report from a coroner's report or court case, I'll read it with interest. And over this period, motorists killed three or four thousand people.

I didn't mention anything about consequences, good, bad or indifferent. But I do hope that those who lecture others about obeying rules of the road NEVER break a speed limit themselves.

Forget about a cyclist causing an injury to anyone else and think about a cyclist causing a major injury to themselves.

As for breaking the speed limit comment your just moving the goal posts. See my previous post my friend was at zero when a cyclist went across the bonnet of the car

RainyDay · 13-06-2015 12:22AM

wtlltw wrote: »

Forget about a cyclist causing an injury to anyone else and think about a cyclist causing a major injury to themselves.

Do cyclists cause major injuries to themselves? Yes indeed - whether by cycling onto the M1 when drunk and getting killed (as happened last year) or by making bad decisions around large trucks, and ending up under the wheels. But the number of these cases are very, very small. Even if, for the sake of arguement, we assume that ALL cyclist fatalities are their own fault, the numbers are very low - 12 last year out of 200-ish fatalities.

So if we want to improve safety on the roads, we know where best to focus our attention. Hint: It's not cyclists.

wtlltw wrote: »

As for breaking the speed limit comment your just moving the goal posts. See my previous post my friend was at zero when a cyclist went across the bonnet of the car

Yes, I'm sure this can happen, though it is a fairly rare event. The fact remains that it is just a tad hypocritical to lecture cyclists about breaking red lights if you (like me and most drivers) break speed limits on just about every car journey.

Qualitymark · 13-06-2015 11:06AM

smash wrote: »

… there is no statistic to say who's at fault for the accidents involving cyclists.

This piece may interest you:

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs, or failing to wear high-visibility clothing and use lights, a [British] government-commissioned study has discovered…
The study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found that in 2% of cases where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road users police said that the rider disobeying a stop sign or traffic light was a likely contributing factor. Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time…
The data, which was analysed by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), showed that more than a quarter of all cycling deaths in 2005-07 happened when a vehicle ran into the rear of a bike. This rose to more than one-third in rural areas and to 40% in collisions that took place away from junctions…
With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.

13-06-2015 01:22PM

They should be made do an eye test, perhaps this is why they constantly break lights.

RainyDay · 13-06-2015 05:20PM

316 wrote: »

They should be made do an eye test, perhaps this is why they constantly break lights.

I guess all these drivers shouldda gone to Specsavers so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc5VGuJvOVk

Pinch Flat · 13-06-2015 08:02PM

RainyDay wrote: »

I guess all these drivers shouldda gone to Specsavers so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc5VGuJvOVk

Apparently the reason by offered one of the pro-motorists on this clip previously was that people were breaking the red in this clip for a number of reasons - fear of being rear ended, bad weather and short sequence.

No - it's just car upon car breaking thelghts and is typical of any junction in an Irish town on a given day

MadDog76 · 13-06-2015 08:33PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Apparently the reason by offered one of the pro-motorists on this clip previously was that people were breaking the red in this clip for a number of reasons - fear of being rear ended, bad weather and short sequence.

No - it's just car upon car breaking thelghts and is typical of any junction in an Irish town on a given day

You know what I like about that clip?
The fact that the drivers can be tracked down and held accountable for breaking the red lights ......... unfortunately when cyclists do it there is little or no way of ever tracking them down so they're rarely held accountable for their actions on the road ......... which is probably why they do it so often!

RainyDay · 13-06-2015 08:37PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Apparently the reason by offered one of the pro-motorists on this clip previously was that people were breaking the red in this clip for a number of reasons - fear of being rear ended, bad weather and short sequence.

Don't forget the 'dog ate my homework' excuse, which is about as relevant as any of the points you mention.

MadDog76 wrote: »

You know what I like about that clip?
The fact that the drivers can be tracked down and held accountable for breaking the red lights ......... unfortunately when cyclists do it there is little or no way of ever tracking them down so they're rarely held accountable for their actions on the road ......... which is probably why they do it so often!

How's that accountability working out? Given that you see the same stuff at every junction in Dublin every day, how's that accountability working out in practice? Why do you think drivers break lights so often, given your scary accountability?

MadDog76 · 13-06-2015 08:49PM

RainyDay wrote: »

Don't forget the 'dog ate my homework' excuse, which is about as relevant as any of the points you mention.

How's that accountability working out? Given that you see the same stuff at every junction in Dublin every day, how's that accountability working out in practice? Why do you think drivers break lights so often, given your scary accountability?

You're missing the point (as you tend to do when it conveniently suits you), enforcement is a separate issue (as are motorists as a matter of fact) to the issue of cyclists being in some way registered with the State so that they can be held accountable for their illegal actions on our roads.

A Theory Test would be a good start

steamengine · 13-06-2015 09:03PM

RainyDay wrote: »

I guess all these drivers shouldda gone to Specsavers so.

Sure and these cyclists too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbttAigUIjI

Pinch Flat · 13-06-2015 09:10PM

steamengine wrote: »

Sure and these cyclists too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbttAigUIjI

So as we've said from the outset of the thread - cyclists and motorists break lights.

I don't get your point

steamengine · 13-06-2015 09:43PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

So as we've said from the outset of the thread - cyclists and motorists break lights.

I don't get your point

Well let's see them both doing it then, not just cars, as portrayed in the first video. Frankly, as a cyclist, the second video is a total embarrassment.

Pinch Flat · 13-06-2015 10:05PM

steamengine wrote: »

Well let's see them both doing it then, not just cars, as portrayed in the first video. Frankly, as a cyclist, the second video is a total embarrassment.

Yea I agree there's some pretty d!ckish behaviour on display. I'd be surprised if a cyclist comes on here defending it.

The video at doyles corner is taking by a local who was p!ssed off at the way the traffic lights were being ignored by all road users. Motorists were trying to defend the behaviour in that video

RainyDay · 14-06-2015 12:15AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

You're missing the point (as you tend to do when it conveniently suits you), enforcement is a separate issue (as are motorists as a matter of fact) to the issue of cyclists being in some way registered with the State so that they can be held accountable for their illegal actions on our roads.

How do you plan to hold them accountable without enforcement?

MadDog76 wrote: »

A Theory Test would be a good start

It would be a good way to divert attention and resources from the death toll on road caused by motorists, if that's what your trying to achieve.

MadDog76 · 14-06-2015 01:39AM

RainyDay wrote: »

How do you plan to hold them accountable without enforcement?

It would be a good way to divert attention and resources from the death toll on road caused by motorists, if that's what your trying to achieve.

I don't personally plan to hold them accountable as I'm not the "State" or a member of any enforcement agency. :rolleyes:

How many people was it that die on our roads every year because of motorists?
Oh wait ......... 200+ wasn't it?
Think you might have mentioned that once or 200+ times in your posts ....... regardless of the actual topic being discussed. :rolleyes:

RainyDay · 14-06-2015 10:33AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

I don't personally plan to hold them accountable as I'm not the "State" or a member of any enforcement agency. :rolleyes:

I see. So you want to build an expensive layer of bureacracy to create an academic theoretical possibility of accountability, even though you know well that;
1) that 'theoretical accountability' doesn't stop drivers from routinely breaking traffic laws, as seen in the Phibsboro video
2) the current level of enforcement does little to prevent this behaviour, and any enforcement resources diverted to cyclist will make this bad situation even worse
3) the presence of a theory test does nothing to stop drivers from routeinly breaking traffic laws as seen in the Phibsboro videos
4) discouraging cycling and cyclists will increase traffic jams, as cyclists get back in their cars
5) most of the cyclists seen breaking lights have already done a theory test when they got their driving licence
6) ALL of the cyclists seen breaking lights know that breaking lights is against the law

Sheer genius, and great public policy development - let's ignore the evidence to satisfy some strange need for theoretical retribution

MadDog76 wrote: »

How many people was it that die on our roads every year because of motorists?
Oh wait ......... 200+ wasn't it?
Think you might have mentioned that once or 200+ times in your posts ....... regardless of the actual topic being discussed. :rolleyes:

Don't make me come down there and explain opportunity cost again? Is it really that hard to understand that any focus of legislation or enforcement resources on cycling is inevitably a reduction of the already stretched resources aimed at reducing the death toll of 200+ people on the road each year (killed by motorists).

MadDog76 · 14-06-2015 10:39AM

RainyDay wrote: »

I see. So you want to build an expensive layer of bureacracy to create an academic theoretical possibility of accountability, even though you know well that;
1) that 'theoretical accountability' doesn't stop drivers from routinely breaking traffic laws, as seen in the Phibsboro video
2) the current level of enforcement does little to prevent this behaviour, and any enforcement resources diverted to cyclist will make this bad situation even worse
3) the presence of a theory test does nothing to stop drivers from routeinly breaking traffic laws as seen in the Phibsboro videos
4) discouraging cycling and cyclists will increase traffic jams, as cyclists get back in their cars
5) most of the cyclists seen breaking lights have already done a theory test when they got their driving licence
6) ALL of the cyclists seen breaking lights know that breaking lights is against the law

Sheer genius, and great public policy development - let's ignore the evidence to satisfy some strange need for theoretical retribution

Don't make me come down there and explain opportunity cost again? Is it really that hard to understand that any focus of legislation or enforcement resources on cycling is inevitably a reduction of the already stretched resources aimed at reducing the death toll of 200+ people on the road each year (killed by motorists).

You really don't have any concept of sarcasm do you!?!

Anyway ........... that's like saying "Let's ignore the rapists and just focus on the murderers" .......... I'd personally rather live in a society were we don't just ignore illegal acts because it's convenient.

Btw how many deaths was it that motorists caused ......... just in case anybody missed it?

RainyDay · 14-06-2015 07:56PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

You really don't have any concept of sarcasm do you!?!

No. No I don't.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Anyway ........... that's like saying "Let's ignore the rapists and just focus on the murderers" ..........

Except that it's not. But what others are proposing on this thread is a bit like saying "Let's bring in a sexual etiquette theory test for all potential rapists and hope that will make things better" or maybe "let's bring in a new registration system for all alcohol drinkers to stop 'intoxication in a public place' instead of focusing on the murderers".

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'd personally rather live in a society were we don't just ignore illegal acts because it's convenient.

No-one has suggested ignoring any illegal acts. We have existing legislation that deals with the illegal acts in question. All I'm suggesting is a sensible risk-based prioritization approach, similar to that used by every law-enforcement body worldwide.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Btw how many deaths was it that motorists caused ......... just in case anybody missed it?

About 200 each year, with thousands more maimed - so that's about 4 or 5 people killed in the week that we've been discussing the issue on this thread, just for context.

MadDog76 · 15-06-2015 01:26AM

RainyDay wrote: »

No. No I don't.

Except that it's not. But what others are proposing on this thread is a bit like saying "Let's bring in a sexual etiquette theory test for all potential rapists and hope that will make things better" or maybe "let's bring in a new registration system for all alcohol drinkers to stop 'intoxication in a public place' instead of focusing on the murderers".

No-one has suggested ignoring any illegal acts. We have existing legislation that deals with the illegal acts in question. All I'm suggesting is a sensible risk-based prioritization approach, similar to that used by every law-enforcement body worldwide.

About 200 each year, with thousands more maimed - so that's about 4 or 5 people killed in the week that we've been discussing the issue on this thread, just for context.

Except that it actually is ........... it really really is ......... like it or not.

Sorry I missed that about the deaths on the road ......... how many was it?

RainyDay · 15-06-2015 11:40AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Except that it actually is ........... it really really is ......... like it or not.

I thought it was fairly obvious why your 'ignoring rapists' metaphor didn't stand up, but if you really want me to explain it, I will.

1) Rape is a heinous crime. Breaking a traffic light on a bike isn't.
2) No-one is suggesting ignoring breaking of traffic lights by cyclists. We have existing legislation and enforcement. Cyclists do get fined for breaking traffic lights.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Sorry I missed that about the deaths on the road ......... how many was it?

I get the feeling that you think this is all a bit of a joke. These are real people dying on the roads. People like 30 year old Linda Griffin, killed by a 21-year-old male motorist while walking home at 1.30 am in Wexford last week. People like Enda Wickham, the 22 year old young man killed when his own car hit a ditch in Wexford last week. Or the 22 year old man killed when his tractor hit a ditch in Cork last week. Or the 60 year old man killed in Laois when his car collided with another car last week. Or the 55 year old man killed on the N17 when his car was hit by another car. If you want to look over the border, we could talk about the 5 year old girl killed by a car in Co Down.

These are real people, with real families.

And you want to focus attention on cyclists breaking red lights.

StewartGriffin · 15-06-2015 11:54AM

RainyDay wrote: »

These are real people, with real families.

Yes they are. So how about you keep them out of your long winded smug little rants and stop using them to score points in your argument?

RainyDay · 15-06-2015 12:14PM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Yes they are. So how about you keep them out of your long winded smug little rants and stop using them to score points in your argument?

Which approach do you recommend?

or perhaps
http://www.polyvore.com/cgi/img-thing?.out=jpg&size=l&tid=41250118

Cyclists should do a theory test!

Comments