Cyclists should do a theory test!

MadDog76 wrote: »

Yes, I have asked 3 Gardai at separate occasions ....... they all answered a variation of "No way of catching them as they weave ahead of you in traffic and no way of identifying them to send out a penalty notice" ......... cyclists need to be registered in some way with the State so that they can be held accountable for their actions on our roads ....... just like motorists.

What, even prosecuting 5 year old on tricycles? You'll probably find its a sensible interpretation of the law by the Gardai. They have zero appetite for prosecuting young children cycling on footpaths

Pinch Flat wrote: »

What, even prosecuting 5 year old on tricycles? You'll probably find its a sensible interpretation of the law by the Gardai. They have zero appetite for prosecuting young children cycling on footpaths

Typical diversion answer from a cyclist .......... how pathetically predictable. :rolleyes:

MadDog76 wrote: »

Typical diversion answer from a cyclist .......... how pathetically predictable. :rolleyes:

Not really. The baying mob were calling for social services and the Gardai to be called if children were cycling on footpaths. Some posters even suggested physically preventing children from passing, forcing them into the road

Anyway, fixed penalty notices are looming closer - have you considered how they track fare evaders on the rail and Luas system without ID cards? Because it's the same sort of scenario

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/rogue-cyclists-facing-50-fine-for-breaking-red-lights-31303040.html

Spook_ie

check_six wrote: »

This law is relevant for bicycles overtaking stationary traffic and a vehicle that gets stuck half way through making a turn. I'm talking about the scenario where a vehicle swings across your lane as you are both travelling along, be that a bike going right or a car going left (or any combination of vehicles). The poster I replied to described this kind of scenario with a bike trying to cross in front of him.

The law also specificly refers to slower moving traffic that a cyclist is overtaking on the left, if the traffic is in front and indicating left or ( as in the example quoted by pinchflat )
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.347326,-6.424664,3a,75y,206.93h,75.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sshF6tCzl0VTEEhYG_4iCsA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
in a left turn lane and is complying with the assumption that they have a reasonable expectation of completing the turn then the motor vehicle has the RoW.

check_six

Spook_ie wrote: »

The law also specificly refers to slower moving traffic that a cyclist is overtaking on the left, if the traffic is in front and indicating left or ( as in the example quoted by ) in a left turn lane and is complying with the assumption that they have a reasonable expectation of completing the turn then the motor vehicle has the RoW.

If you are in front and indicating left you also need to be able to complete the turn without hindering the person in the inside lane. You cannot simply be in front and indicating. As we discussed earlier (and I thought we'd all agreed on this) just putting out your hand (or indicating) and turning does not grant you right of way.

The part of the law you quoted is to cover instances where a vehicle starts a turn with ample time and space and ends up blocking the route of the bike track because they have stopped half way through the manoeuver.

ii) has signalled an intention to turn to the left and there is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle in which the driver has signalled an intention to turn to the left will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle,

It is not carte blanche for someone to swing across a cyclist and claim that they had room to turn because they had their noses fractionally ahead of them.

Just saw on the news the proposals for on the spot fines for cyclists who break lights or cycle recklessly.

All I can say is it's about time! Allowing anyone with a Dublin Bikes account or Bike to Work Scheme to start mixing it up with motorised traffic in heavy/rush hour conditions without proper training or accountability is madness. Next steps should be mandatory insurance - both to cover themselves and any 3rd party or damage caused in the event of an incident.

No doubt the pro-cycling crowd will be along to tell me this isn't fair/comparable/practical/would disincentivise cycling - answer there is tough! If you demand equal rights and space on the roads (or indeed more of it) then you should have equal responsibility (and liability) as other road users as well.

Spook_ie

check_six wrote: »

If you are in front and indicating left you also need to be able to complete the turn without hindering the person in the inside lane. You cannot simply be in front and indicating. As we discussed earlier (and I thought we'd all agreed on this) just putting out your hand (or indicating) and turning does not grant you right of way.

The part of the law you quoted is to cover instances where a vehicle starts a turn with ample time and space and ends up blocking the route of the bike track because they have stopped half way through the manoeuver.

It is not carte blanche for someone to swing across a cyclist and claim that they had room to turn because they had their noses fractionally ahead of them.

You what?

The part of the law you quoted is to cover instances where a vehicle starts a turn with ample time and space and ends up blocking the route of the bike track because they have stopped half way through the manoeuver.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Just saw on the news the proposals for on the spot fines for cyclists who break lights or cycle recklessly.

All I can say is it's about time! Allowing anyone with a Dublin Bikes account or Bike to Work Scheme to start mixing it up with motorised traffic in heavy/rush hour conditions without proper training or accountability is madness. Next steps should be mandatory insurance - both to cover themselves and any 3rd party or damage caused in the event of an incident.

No doubt the pro-cycling crowd will be along to tell me this isn't fair/comparable/practical/would disincentivise cycling - answer there is tough! If you demand equal rights and space on the roads (or indeed more of it) then you should have equal responsibility (and liability) as other road users as well.

You do realise a lot of cyclists are drivers? 70%-80% depending on what you read-and that 20000 cyclists already have voluntary insurance?

The pro-cycling crowd will not be on here complaining of its unfairness - on the contrary. The only slight gripe i have us that the fine is a tad on the high side compared to comparible motoring offences. On liability i would advocate strict liability for motorists in line with almost every other eu country but thats a moot point

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

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

All I can say is it's about time! Allowing anyone with a Dublin Bikes account or Bike to Work Scheme to start mixing it up with motorised traffic in heavy/rush hour conditions without proper training or accountability is madness. Next steps should be mandatory insurance - both to cover themselves and any 3rd party or damage caused in the event of an incident.

How's that 'proper training' and 'accountability' and 'mandatory insurance' working out in terms of stopping motorists doing dangerous things like breaking traffic lights?

roadrunner16

MadDog76 wrote: »

Typical diversion answer from a cyclist .......... how pathetically predictable. :rolleyes:

So all cyclists act the same way now ? :rolleyes: careful or soon we'll be as untouchable as the traveling community !

People are bas.tards and some drive cars and some cycle bikes

MadDog76 wrote: »

I think it's hilarious that you bang out the same "200+" motorists line in every second post no matter what question you're asked or what topic is discussed!

It's your "go-to" answer ..........

Classy, so 200+ deaths a year is a big joke to you.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Yes, I have asked 3 Gardai at separate occasions ....... they all answered a variation of "No way of catching them as they weave ahead of you in traffic and no way of identifying them to send out a penalty notice" ......... cyclists need to be registered in some way with the State so that they can be held accountable for their actions on our roads ....... just like motorists.

Someone might have posed this question to you before - do you make a habit of reporting errant motorists, hgv drivers, motorcyclists, bus drivers etc or just have an issue with cyclists?

roadrunner16 wrote: »

So all cyclists act the same way now ? :rolleyes: careful or soon we'll be as untouchable as the traveling community !

People are bas.tards and some drive cars and some cycle bikes

Not all cyclists no ........... just the ones that have a Boards.ie account it would seem.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

You do realise a lot of cyclists are drivers? 70%-80% depending on what you read-and that 20000 cyclists already have voluntary insurance?

Whether cyclists are drivers too is irrelevant. I'm not aware of any motor policy that covers an individual when using a push bike.

Voluntary insurance is a good thing for sure, but it needs to be mandatory both for their own protection and other road users (motorised, other cyclists and pedestrians alike)

RainyDay wrote: »

How's that 'proper training' and 'accountability' and 'mandatory insurance' working out in terms of stopping motorists doing dangerous things like breaking traffic lights?

Really? The best argument you can come up with is "I saw another boy do it so I should be able to do it too"?

Well in case it's not obvious... neither example is acceptable. The difference is that if a motorist is caught doing these things they can be held accountable and prosecuted

Your example highlights the problem of a lack of enforcement - not a lack of ability to do so.

[EDIT] Oh and having watched your video, many of the cars you are using as an example in your point had already entered the junction before the light went red - I think the real issue is the green to red sequence is very short for such a busy junction!

RainyDay wrote: »

Classy, so 200+ deaths a year is a big joke to you.

Classy???
About as classy as actually naming real-life people (who's families may be reading your posts) who have tragically lost their lives on our roads in a vile attempt to justify your argument ......... disgusting.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Someone might have posed this question to you before - do you make a habit of reporting errant motorists, hgv drivers, motorcyclists, bus drivers etc or just have an issue with cyclists?

I'd probably have a near-miss or encounter an a**hole motorist about 4/5 times in a year ............ whereas I have near-misses or encounter a**hole cyclists at least 4/5 times a day ......... unfortunately I can't report the cyclists as I have no way of identifying them.

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'd probably have a near-miss or encounter an a**hole motorist about 4/5 times in a year ............ whereas I have near-misses or encounter a**hole cyclists at least 4/5 times a day ......... unfortunately I can't report the cyclists as I have no way of identifying them.

So, did you report the drivers? 4-5 times sounds very low btw - confirmation bias much?

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Whether cyclists are drivers too is irrelevant.

No it's not. The common perception amongst the motor centric is that cyclists are not trained to use the roads, which is not the case, ergo your comment

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

.....to start mixing it up with motorised traffic in heavy/rush hour conditions without proper training or accountability.....

Do you get just as excited about the large proportion of unaccompanied provisional drivers - who have little or no training - using the roads? Or what about the 5% of drivers - about 100,000 - that drive about uninsured?

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I'm not aware of any motor policy that covers an individual when using a push bike.

It's because there isn't any. The giveaway is in the name

http://www.cyclingireland.ie/page/membership/insurance

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Voluntary insurance is a good thing for sure, but it needs to be mandatory both for their own protection and other road users (motorised, other cyclists and pedestrians alike)

Perhaps but we have mandatory insurance for motorists for a number of years now and I'm not sure it's reflected in what you're expecting from the equivalent in cycling insurance.

Cyclists will insure primarily themselves against bodily injury, next the bike and thirdly third parties - it's not taken out to cover them for the odd wing mirror being removed, although it does help

Pinch Flat wrote: »

No it's not. The common perception amongst the motor centric is that cyclists are not trained to use the roads, which is not the case.

Do you get just as excited about the large proportion of unaccompanied provisional drivers - who have no training - using the roads? Or what about the 5% of drivers - about 100,000 - that drive about uninsured?

For sure.. they should be removed from the roads as well. You seem to think that this is a motorist vs cyclist issue.. it's not. It's a law-abiding vs non-law abiding issue.

It's because there isn't any. The giveaway is on the name

Hence why your point about many(?) cyclists being motorists as well is just as irrelevant. Using the roads on a push bike is a very different scenario than as a motorist, and regardless you're assuming that many have had training in a car.. not a wise move surely before letting hoards of people out among busy traffic and heavy vehicles.

Perhaps but we have mandatory insurance for motorists for a number of years now and I'm not sure it's reflected in what you're expecting from the equivalent in cycling insurance.

Cyclists will insure primarily themselves against bodily injury, next the bike and thirdly third parties - it's not taken out to cover them for the odd wing mirror being removed, although it does help

Well if they expect to be able to use the roads on an equal footing to other road users, they should be covered accordingly. That wing mirror you refer to could cost a motorist a few hundred to fix depending on the model of the car.

More important though is that they are adequately covered for physical injury, or for any pedestrians/other cyclists they might run into.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Yes, I have asked 3 Gardai at separate occasions ....... they all answered a variation of "No way of catching them as they weave ahead of you in traffic and no way of identifying them to send out a penalty notice" ......... cyclists need to be registered in some way with the State so that they can be held accountable for their actions on our roads ....... just like motorists.

Strange that the Garda thinks it is impossible, but thousands of cyclists have been prosecuted. http://irishcycle.com/2014/10/07/3200-irish-cyclists-summoned-to-court-in-ten-years/

The current system is a bit cumbersome, but cyclists are already held accountable for their actions on the roads, just like motorists.

smash wrote: »

Because human error.

It's not error. It is a lack of attention, a lack of control, a lack of giving a toss in many cases.

smash wrote: »

Because we're talking about the 5%, not the 95% which is already a steadily falling figure.

No, you're talking about the 5%, which is a fairly future approach if you are actually interested in saving lives at all. I'm focusing on the 95%, because that's where attention will save most lives.

smash wrote: »

You can clearly see what they did, which was to start crossing as traffic was approaching. Traffic even had to stop before hitting them. And given the amount of times filmed at that one particular crossing, and the amount of times there were near misses, it's almost as if the videographer wanted to be hit.

I am quite incredulous, that you see a pedestrian crossing with a 'green man', you see 'Traffic even had to stop before hitting them' - and your concern is with the pedestrian's behaviour. Amazing victim-blaming.

smash wrote: »

I'd agree with red light cameras, but I don't agree with calling this guy "Joe Public". It's just some sad git with too much time on his hands acting passive aggressive at a set of lights. Like those cyclists who hide behind a helmet camera and selectively upload footage of driver error, even where there's been no accident. Even publishing people's reg numbers so they can give themselves a pat on the back... It's pathetic really. If a motorist did it to cyclists constantly you'd have cyclists arguing crap like "You don't see him posting the footage where he's speeding!".

I'm starting to understand where you're coming from. Would you like to post a link to the video that you appeared in?

smash wrote: »

If a motorist did it to cyclists constantly you'd have cyclists arguing crap like "You don't see him posting the footage where he's speeding!".

And now you're criticising cyclists for how they might behave in a particular hypothetical scenario, though that doesn't seem to have actually happened. Paranoid much?

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Voluntary insurance is a good thing for sure, but it needs to be mandatory both for their own protection and other road users (motorised, other cyclists and pedestrians alike)

It's a bit strange how deaths caused by cyclists don't happen here in Ireland (just 1 death in the last 15-20 years), but you seem to see cyclists (10kg-20kg) as an equal risk to cars (1000kg-3000kg). Are you experienced in risk assessment, I wonder?

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Really? The best argument you can come up with is "I saw another boy do it so I should be able to do it too"?

Well in case it's not obvious... neither example is acceptable. The difference is that if a motorist is caught doing these things they can be held accountable and prosecuted

No, that's not the arguement at all. If you need to simplify it in your terms, it would be closer to some thing like "I saw another boy do it and no-one stopped him, so no-one's going to stop me either" which is the reality of the situation.

Thousands of cyclists are held accountable and are prosecuted.
http://irishcycle.com/2014/10/07/3200-irish-cyclists-summoned-to-court-in-ten-years/
It's a bit cumbersome, but it does happen.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Your example highlights the problem of a lack of enforcement - not a lack of ability to do so.

Correct. It does highlight a lack of enforcement. The same lack of enforcement that will be around after your theoretical regstration system for cyclists comes into place. So what's the point in a registration with no enforcement. Or would you like to divert resources from the existing poorly enforced motorists to focus on cyclists?

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

[EDIT] Oh and having watched your video, many of the cars you are using as an example in your point had already entered the junction before the light went red - I think the real issue is the green to red sequence is very short for such a busy junction!

You may want to sit down for this. This may come as a bit of a shock, but the purpose of the amber light is to give you a warning that there is a red light coming, so you don't get caught in the junction on a red light. I know this approach is not well-understood by motorists, given the behaviour that we normally see on the road, where amber is generally seen as 'put the boot down and hope there are no pedestrians or cyclists around'.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

For sure.. they should be removed from the roads as well. You seem to think that this is a motorist vs cyclist issue.. it's not. It's a law-abiding vs non-law abiding issue.

Im not a betting man, but if I was......the primary thread is about cyclists doing a theory test.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Hence why your point about many(?) cyclists being motorists as well is just as irrelevant. Using the roads on a push bike is a very different scenario than as a motorist, and regardless you're assuming that many have had training in a car.. not a wise move surely before letting hoards of people out among busy traffic and heavy vehicles.

Yes 70%-80% of cyclists are motorists.

The correct way to approach this of course would be to have all children school in the rules of the road, cycle craft and slant a mandatory period as a cyclist before graduating to a motorised vehicle. This has mentioned on the thread before.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Well if they expect to be able to use the roads on an equal footing to other road users, they should be covered accordingly.

Why? They can already and there's no appetite on the current government to implement this. With the exponential numbers taking out cycling Ireland membership, it'll be likely many more cyclists will be insured anyway.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

So, did you report the drivers? 4-5 times sounds very low btw - confirmation bias much?

I reported 3 drivers in the last 8 months and another one was pulled over by an unmarked Garda car that was driving behind me ........ haven't been able to report any cyclists as yet because I have no way of identifying them.

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

It's not error. It is a lack of attention, a lack of control, a lack of giving a toss in many cases.

It is certainly not lack of giving a toss. People don't want to injure or kill others, or themselves, or have their cars smashed or their insurance to rise.

RainyDay wrote: »

No, you're talking about the 5%, which is a fairly future approach if you are actually interested in saving lives at all. I'm focusing on the 95%, because that's where attention will save most lives.

The thread is about the 5%

RainyDay wrote: »

I am quite incredulous, that you see a pedestrian crossing with a 'green man', you see 'Traffic even had to stop before hitting them' - and your concern is with the pedestrian's behaviour. Amazing victim-blaming.

Victim blaming? Where's the fcuking victim in that video? The guy recording is an asshole. He sees cars approaching and he walks in front of them! Someone breaks the lights so it's ok to walk in front of them and almost cause a serious accident?

RainyDay wrote: »

I'm starting to understand where you're coming from. Would you like to post a link to the video that you appeared in?

I've never appeared in one. I just have a strong opinion about these kinds of videos. They're sad and pathetic and the people recording usually have serious attitude problems.

RainyDay wrote: »

And now you're criticising cyclists for how they might behave in a particular hypothetical scenario, though that doesn't seem to have actually happened. Paranoid much?

Well I haven't come across a motorist sad enough to get home and trawl through footage to upload it to YouTube just so they can pat themselves on the back for showing cyclists breaking the law. I guess they just have a life... Then again if cyclists could be identified I'm sure you'd see the videos flooding in.

roadrunner16

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'd probably have a near-miss or encounter an a**hole motorist about 4/5 times in a year

I'd have that many in a month, either on the bike or in the car. The point alot of people are making is that cars have far more of an impact on the roads than bikes. the RSA stats are clear, a car is far more dangerous than a bike and cyclists are not the most dangerous road user, its poor car drivers.

MadDog76 wrote: »

I reported 3 drivers in the last 8 months and another one was pulled over by an unmarked Garda car that was driving behind me ........ haven't been able to report any cyclists as yet because I have no way of identifying them.

All those cyclists out there ready to wreak havoc on the roads and going unpunished. Might consider giving up the oul cycling lark altogether.

diomed

There is a thread on Facebook this week from a woman complaining of cyclists on the Wicklow 200 annual cycle blocking the road. She posted a photo taken from her car showing, in her words "cyclists out to the white line" on a one lane road and one cyclist over the white line.
She did not say why the cyclists were grouped four or five wide. My guess is there was an obstruction the caused the cyclists to stop. From reading her "report" you would think the cyclists blocked the road maliciously because they were inconsiderate of other road users i.e car drivers.
Her words - "disgraceful / no warning / entire road / impossible / blatant disregard / recklessly / dangerously / regular occurrence / seriously injured".

A few mornings ago I was on the road at 08:20. The road was covered with cars. In places there were lines of cars, perhaps 15 or 20 in a line, blocking the road out as far as the white line. And when I came home I saw cars on my road abandoned and locked by their drivers for the day at the side of the road, perhaps ten cars in a row, reducing the width of the single lane road to only one usable lane. Those cars were blocking the road all day.

I took 2,100 photos of the Wicklow 200/100 on the same day that the complaining woman took her one photo. In four hours the cyclists behaved well, obeying the rules of the road. There was one traffic jam that cleared after about a minute. I offered her the chance to review the 2,100 images for bad cyclist behaviour, but she didn't respond. She doesn't want evidence that contradicts her post.

You see what you want to see.

Should cyclists do a theory test? I think you will find that a high percentage of cyclist already have - they have car driving licences.

diomed wrote: »

Should cyclists do a theory test? I think you will find that a high percentage of cyclist already have - they have car driving licences.

This is complete speculation on your part, and a bit ironic that you talk about how people see what they want to see when a poster above posts a video supposed to show how ineffective that license is when it comes to motorist behaviour.

We have no idea how many cyclists - particularly new cyclists taking advantage of the Bike to Work or Dublin Bikes schemes - have done any sort of formal training with regards to the rules of the road or indeed the differences between being on the road in a car, or a push bike weaving between traffic.

Given that there's currently no legal requirement to do such a test, hold a license/certificate of competency, or have insurance for cyclists I'd say there are a significant portion out there who bought a bike and off they went.. maybe with some half-remembered lessons from their childhood.

As I said, this isn't a cyclists vs motorists issue.. it's about competence, training and most of all safety for all road users and ensuring that everyone (motorists, peds and cyclists alike) obey the rules - and yes absolutely should those who don't be fined or prosecuted if caught. Many of the behaviours most complained about (from both sides) are because the chance of spotting a Garda doing more than tax disc checks or "speeding" detections on our roads are slim. Still, now that they've introduced a red light camera in Dublin that should address many of the problems on the junction in question, and citywide if that scheme is expanded.

In short, ye can't have it both ways... if you expect to be able to use the roads as equals and be respected by motorists, then cyclists must absolutely demonstrate a competence to be there, and be covered by insurance should an incident occur (to protect themselves and others/other people's property). And just as how motorists face penalties if they break the laws, so too should cyclists face similar sanctions if they do the same.

pmasterson95

Its funny how cyclists can cut red lights then scream about motorists nearly hitting them. If they did not cut the light they prob wouldnt be in danger, but its totally the motorists fault.