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

check_six

Dr Crippen wrote: »

In regards the helmet laws surely they have been effective from a life saving point of view?

There are no helmet laws in Ireland. Wear them if you like.

Knasher wrote: »

What has been shown is that mandatory helmets result in a large drop in the number of people cycling. So making something of questionable benefit, and provable cost, mandatory seems like poor policy.

Australia have mandatory cycle helmet laws and they caused the failure of their version of Dublin Bikes in Melbourne. Also the rate of people cycling dropped off when you'd think it would be increasing with Aussies doing so well in the big cycle races (Cadel Evans winning the Tour de France, etc.)

smash

CramCycle wrote: »

I would disagree with you, every place/jurisdiction that has put licensing or mandatory helmet laws or similar in place have seen a reduction in the number of cyclists

Knasher wrote: »

What has been shown is that mandatory helmets result in a large drop in the number of people cycling.

Are cyclists that precious about their hair or something? I don't really get it. It's like motorists going on strike because their cars have to have airbags. It's for safety reasons...

check_six

Dr Crippen wrote: »

We are talking about introducing a theory test for cyclists? where have you been? You seem to be against most of this debate its unclear where you stand or importantly what your point is. Ultimately the title of the discussion is 'Cyclists should do a theory test' a lot of people on boards feel it could be good for the health and safety of cyclists. So far you have mentioned the cost it would incur to implement this, have you any information or figures to back this up?

This 200 plus figure you mention, how many are cyclists? How many are motorist on motorist.

As I mentioned I am a cyclist and firmly believe this would actually do more good than harm.

Ah here, have a look through the thread for the thinking behind this first. It's not as simple as you imagine.

In summary: Thoughts about "Cyclists should do a theory test"

- who are the 'Cyclists' who qualify to do a test? 4 year olds graduating from stabilisers? Tourists on Dublin Bikes? People who have already done a driving test and driver theory test? Someone who has just found an old bike in the shed and fancies a spin?

- If there is a test, when do you do it? when you are 18? How come you can cycle around before that? Maybe you can't. Maybe the oncoming health crisis in our youth should be exacerbated by ferrying them around in cars the whole time.

- how do you keep track of who has done a cycling theory test? Do you need a cycling licence? who administers the licence? Who pays to do the administration? This sort of stuff would need a huge organisation to run, think about how Irish Water was set up recently.

- cycling is booming because it's an easy way to get around, and stay healthy while you're at it. Also the government are trying to encourage people to cycle by giving tax breaks on new bikes. They need to get more people out of cars because congestion is only going to get worse. Putting a pointless barrier in the way of people will kill that boom stone dead and kickoff some major gridlock.

- lots of cyclists already have driving licences. Should there be a separate test for using a bike?

- why not do cycle/road safety courses in school? If you can get some funding, it sounds like a good idea. Just make sure it's not someone from the RSA with a "hi-vis solves everything" agenda.

Knasher

Dr Crippen wrote: »

In regards the helmet laws surely they have been effective from a life saving point of view? I have come off the bike a few times and without the helmet I was looking at far more serious injuries than I received.

I choose to wear one, because I think they are better than not. But, as I understand it, their effectiveness is very much debatable. They are really only effective for a very narrow band of low impact accidents. At the same time there are studies showing that motorists will treat cyclists wearing helmets with less regard than those without.

What has been shown is that mandatory helmets result in a large drop in the number of people cycling. So making something of questionable benefit, and provable cost, mandatory seems like poor policy.

Dr Crippen

I very much agree at introducing it at national level, couldn't agree more but how and where? Have any other countries done this, i would be interested in reading up on that.

In regards the helmet laws surely they have been effective from a life saving point of view? I have come off the bike a few times and without the helmet I was looking at far more serious injuries than I received.

I see one driving school with this section for cyclists which I thought was good

http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/pedal-cyclist.html

CramCycle

Dr Crippen wrote: »

As I mentioned I am a cyclist and firmly believe this would actually do more good than harm.

I would disagree with you, every place/jurisdiction that has put licensing or mandatory helmet laws or similar in place have seen a reduction in the number of cyclists (or the laws repealed by the authorities very soon afterwards) but not a reduction in the percentage of injuries which would indicate that systems like this will fail.

Introduce it at national school level, part of the curriculum, thats it, it is the only sensible solution from a safety perspective, from a cost perspective, from every perspective.

Almost every study of this suggestion has come up with the following, paraphrased:
- A licence is not required for police to enforce the existing road traffic law
- Testing and licensing would be expensive and take attention away from enforcement of the existing road traffic rules for cyclists
- Cyclist education (through education for all) and increased police enforcement, would be a more cost-effective approach for improving safety.

Dr Crippen

RainyDay wrote: »

I didn't say anything about the value of a theory test for motorists. Why don't you try arguing with what I've actually said, instead of making stuff up.

No but you did write this

Which demonstrates nicely the pointlessness of a theory test, given the level of compliance by motorists with red lights, speed limits, indicating etc.

So by your statement you say a theory test is pointless. I could not disagree with you more, You are happy to let a motorist off in the car with no prior testing?

I'm not offering a particular solution because I'm not clear what problem we are trying to fix, or why we are focusing on this issue when 200+ people are killed each year by motorists. Maybe if you could be clear on what problem we are trying to fix and what benefits would come from fixing it, we might make some progress.

We are talking about introducing a theory test for cyclists? where have you been? You seem to be against most of this debate its unclear where you stand or importantly what your point is. Ultimately the title of the discussion is 'Cyclists should do a theory test' a lot of people on boards feel it could be good for the health and safety of cyclists. So far you have mentioned the cost it would incur to implement this, have you any information or figures to back this up?

This 200 plus figure you mention, how many are cyclists? How many are motorist on motorist.

As I mentioned I am a cyclist and firmly believe this would actually do more good than harm.

Sheldons Brain

rubadub wrote: »

.

I have seen gardai give nods of approval to cyclists breaking lights, myself included. I have gotten waves from gardai in cars as I illegally mounted a totally empty and very large footpath on a busy stretch of road for my own safety and to aid the flow of traffic.

This is just corruption.

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

There is absolutely no evidence that a theory test will work to change cyclist behaviour.

Well I guess if anything, there's probably evidence to suggest that it wouldn't change their behaviour at all. By your own admittance, most cyclists are motorists so a lot of them would have complete a theory test and yet they still break red lights and cut across lanes without indicating etc etc. The only thing to do is fine them and possibly make cyclists wear some form of clear identification like a reg plate system so that when caught on camera they can be prosecuted.

How about a high vis with a unique reg number printed on it? Increase visibility, revenue and implement an identification system all in one go. Dublin bikes and other such schemes can have a plate attached and fines could be issued to the account holder who was using the bike at the time.

RainyDay

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Well actually your not being practical by your logic there should be no need for a theory test for motorists as most don't obey the rules, and yet you have no solution what so ever. You are adamant a theory test for cyclists would cost time and money, based on what, produce your evidence and calculations, back up your statement. Read up on the N plate. The N plate highlights a new driver who is liable to higher penalties for road offenses compared to a driver who qualified before the introduction of the N plate and time will show whether it works or not.

I didn't say anything about the value of a theory test for motorists. Why don't you try arguing with what I've actually said, instead of making stuff up.

I'm not offering a particular solution because I'm not clear what problem we are trying to fix, or why we are focusing on this issue when 200+ people are killed each year by motorists. Maybe if you could be clear on what problem we are trying to fix and what benefits would come from fixing it, we might make some progress.

Dr Crippen

RainyDay wrote: »

Bwaahaahaa - don't make me post the videos again, the ones showing drivers ignoring red lights, using mobile phones, overtaking cyclists too closely etc etc. Just look around you - how many drivers actually stick to speed limits?

I'm not trying to make friends. I'm trying to be practical. There is absolutely no evidence that a theory test will work to change cyclist behaviour. We see every day that it is completely ineffective in changing motorist behaviour.

I don't know much about the N-plate, but I know it's not a theory test.

Well actually your not being practical by your logic there should be no need for a theory test for motorists as most don't obey the rules, and yet you have no solution what so ever. You are adamant a theory test for cyclists would cost time and money, based on what, produce your evidence and calculations, back up your statement. Read up on the N plate. The N plate highlights a new driver who is liable to higher penalties for road offenses compared to a driver who qualified before the introduction of the N plate and time will show whether it works or not.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

The level of compliance by motorists is very high actually.

Bwaahaahaa - don't make me post the videos again, the ones showing drivers ignoring red lights, using mobile phones, overtaking cyclists too closely etc etc. Just look around you - how many drivers actually stick to speed limits?

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Well that's not a great attitude to be honest, the RSA introduced the N plate for example on newly qualified drivers to introduced stricter penalties and also to make other drivers aware of a newly qualified driver. Awareness and behavior are often linked.

I'm not trying to make friends. I'm trying to be practical. There is absolutely no evidence that a theory test will work to change cyclist behaviour. We see every day that it is completely ineffective in changing motorist behaviour.

I don't know much about the N-plate, but I know it's not a theory test.

smash

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Even with something like not using mobile phones whilst driving?
I can't find the survey now but I recall over half of respondents in a recent survey admitted to using mobiles whilst driving.
Last year in the first three months of the year over 10000 people were stopped for mobile phone use whilst driving.

Using a mobile while driving is a different issue. It's extremely dangerous and yes, I see a lot of people doing it. Regarding red lights, speed limits and indicating though, the majority of drivers obey the rules.

Dr Crippen

RainyDay wrote: »

I've no idea how much it will cost or how much time will be required. I do know that every penny of cost and every minute of time will come from existing road safety resources, and will result in less time/money spent on reducing the death toll on the roads.
I don't believe your point is correct, the RSA submits its funding every year, and would include this within their budget. I also don't believe there would be any ill will in funding an awareness and safety campaign to reduce the number of cyclist deaths and injuries, for example like the gentleman who was knocked off his bike at the national museum this morning.

We don't need awareness - we need changes in behaviour. Why would think that awareness results in changed behaviour, given the current behaviour of motorists on the road?

Well that's not a great attitude to be honest, the RSA introduced the N plate for example on newly qualified drivers to introduced stricter penalties and also to make other drivers aware of a newly qualified driver. Awareness and behavior are often linked.

[Deleted User]

smash wrote: »

The level of compliance by motorists is very high actually.

Even with something like not using mobile phones whilst driving?
I can't find the survey now but I recall over half of respondents in a recent survey admitted to using mobiles whilst driving.
Last year in the first three months of the year over 10000 people were stopped for mobile phone use whilst driving.

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Which demonstrates nicely the pointlessness of a theory test, given the level of compliance by motorists with red lights, speed limits, indicating etc.

The level of compliance by motorists is very high actually.

RainyDay

Dr Crippen wrote: »

I am not lobbying for this, it is purely a suggestion. Also your point is a bit vague, how much time would be required, how much would it cost?, would you recommend a solution?

I've no idea how much it will cost or how much time will be required. I do know that every penny of cost and every minute of time will come from existing road safety resources, and will result in less time/money spent on reducing the death toll on the roads.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

I apologise as I tempered my language to a friendlier colloquial tone rather than berating cyclists or singling out individuals. Any theory test is effective as it makes a cyclist, motorcyclist or car driver aware of the various rules of the road. It makes everyone aware of various dangers such as blindspots in mirrors, remember not all cyclists are motorists, that is a presumption.

We don't need awareness - we need changes in behaviour. Why would think that awareness results in changed behaviour, given the current behaviour of motorists on the road?

Dr Crippen

RainyDay wrote: »

When it comes to public policy and legislation, we need a bit of a stronger case than 'don't see any harm' or 'would help'. For a start, the time and resources spent setting up and enforcing a cycling theory test will mean less resources spent reducing the 200+ annual death toll on our roads. Is this really where we want to invest our road safety time and resources?
I am not lobbying for this, it is purely a suggestion. Also your point is a bit vague, how much time would be required, how much would it cost?, would you recommend a solution?
We need a better case than 'won't do any harm'. We see motorists every day breaking lights, speeding, texting - all of whom have passed their theory test. Why would think a cycling theory test would be effective at all?
I apologise as I tempered my language to a friendlier colloquial tone rather than berating cyclists or singling out individuals. Any theory test is effective as it makes a cyclist, motorcyclist or car driver aware of the various rules of the road. It makes everyone aware of various dangers such as blindspots in mirrors, remember not all cyclists are motorists, that is a presumption.

So theories like 'stop at a red light' - 'check for traffic behind you before changing lane' are very different for cyclists and motorists?

It is perfectly legal for cyclists, motorcyclists and motorists to filter on the left of slow moving traffic.

You are correct, yet only when safe to do so

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

They must be, because cyclists very often don't do either of these things...

Which demonstrates nicely the pointlessness of a theory test, given the level of compliance by motorists with red lights, speed limits, indicating etc.

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

So theories like 'stop at a red light' - 'check for traffic behind you before changing lane' are very different for cyclists and motorists?

They must be, because cyclists very often don't do either of these things...

RainyDay

Dr Crippen wrote: »

I think some sort of course on city cycling would help, you only have to stand at the lights on westmoreland street, just outside trinity to observe cyclists riding on through the red light there. I see it every day without fail. Another point would be cyclist's weaving in and out of traffic along the north side quays which although is time saving and brave by them but essentially dangerous. I cycle myself every day and see as many incidents by cyclists as car drivers but ultimately the person in the car is less likely to be killed in those instances

Dr Crippen wrote: »

I don't see any harm in it really, motorcyclists are required to do it so why not cyclists?

When it comes to public policy and legislation, we need a bit of a stronger case than 'don't see any harm' or 'would help'. For a start, the time and resources spent setting up and enforcing a cycling theory test will mean less resources spent reducing the 200+ annual death toll on our roads. Is this really where we want to invest our road safety time and resources?

We need a better case than 'won't do any harm'. We see motorists every day breaking lights, speeding, texting - all of whom have passed their theory test. Why would think a cycling theory test would be effective at all?

smash wrote: »

This is it, the theory test is all about motorists so cyclists who are motorists still don't learn much about safety when cycling.

So theories like 'stop at a red light' - 'check for traffic behind you before changing lane' are very different for cyclists and motorists?

Dr Crippen wrote: »

I would take a look at the junction before the ormonde hotel on the quays quite a bit of it takes place there.

I was of the understanding that motor cyclists had a responsibility and criteria in non moving traffic, why would it be different for cyclists?

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Motorcycles/This_is_your_bike.pdf

It is perfectly legal for cyclists, motorcyclists and motorists to filter on the left of slow moving traffic.

Dr Crippen

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Not much point cycling if you're going to sit in the queue of cars. Weaving in an out of stationary traffic when you cant get past on the left (or more often than not there are cars or motorbikes blocking the cycle lane) comes with the territory of cycling in the city.

I would take a look at the junction before the ormonde hotel on the quays quite a bit of it takes place there.

I was of the understanding that motor cyclists had a responsibility and criteria in non moving traffic, why would it be different for cyclists?

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Motorcycles/This_is_your_bike.pdf

Pinch Flat

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I must have missed the meeting of all cyclists of Ireland were we agreed to upload these videos.
So obviously having missed that meeting were we agreed our collective mind, I dont know why Cyclists feel the need to upload these videos.

We need to speak to our cycling overlord about these misdemeanours.

[Deleted User]

smash wrote: »

My comment was in relation to why cyclists feel the need to upload these videos, not in relation to what motorists want to do.

I must have missed the meeting of all cyclists of Ireland were we agreed to upload these videos.
So obviously having missed that meeting were we agreed our collective mind, I dont know why Cyclists feel the need to upload these videos.

Grandpa Hassan

Dr Crippen wrote: »

I think some sort of course on city cycling would help, you only have to stand at the lights on westmoreland street, just outside trinity to observe cyclists riding on through the red light there. I see it every day without fail. Another point would be cyclist's weaving in and out of traffic along the north side quays which although is time saving and brave by them but essentially dangerous. I cycle myself every day and see as many incidents by cyclists as car drivers but ultimately the person in the car is less likely to be killed in those instances

Not much point cycling if you're going to sit in the queue of cars. Weaving in an out of stationary traffic when you cant get past on the left (or more often than not there are cars or motorbikes blocking the cycle lane) comes with the territory of cycling in the city.

Dr Crippen

smash wrote: »

This is it, the theory test is all about motorists so cyclists who are motorists still don't learn much about safety when cycling.

I don't see any harm in it really, motorcyclists are required to do it so why not cyclists?

As a cyclist I think it would benefit a lot of people and importantly make them aware of when they are putting themselves in unnecessary danger, for instance cycling up the right hand side of a bus on the quays?

It is not a way of highlighting issues with cyclists but making them aware of the dangers of city cycling. Before someone comes on berating me, I cycle everyday in the city and find fault both with motorists and cyclists!

smash

Dr Crippen wrote: »

I think some sort of course on city cycling would help, you only have to stand at the lights on westmoreland street, just outside trinity to observe cyclists riding on through the red light there. I see it every day without fail. Another point would be cyclist's weaving in and out of traffic along the north side quays which although is time saving and brave by them but essentially dangerous. I cycle myself every day and see as many incidents by cyclists as car drivers but ultimately the person in the car is less likely to be killed in those instances

This is it, the theory test is all about motorists so cyclists who are motorists still don't learn much about safety when cycling.

Dr Crippen

smash wrote: »

Most cyclists are motorists too so they would have done a test. I think a change in attitude and a bit more law enforcement is needed most.

I think some sort of course on city cycling would help, you only have to stand at the lights on westmoreland street, just outside trinity to observe cyclists riding on through the red light there. I see it every day without fail. Another point would be cyclist's weaving in and out of traffic along the north side quays which although is time saving and brave by them but essentially dangerous. I cycle myself every day and see as many incidents by cyclists as car drivers but ultimately the person in the car is less likely to be killed in those instances

smash

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Ah ok. Maybe consider bringing back the stocks then. Motorists could being a range of things to throw at the errant cyclist - rotten eggs, a few cabbages. Could be quite the spectacle.

My comment was in relation to why cyclists feel the need to upload these videos, not in relation to what motorists want to do.

ThisRegard

RainyDay wrote: »

The flood has started;
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95468311&postcount=81

More likely a dribble. In the second video it's hard to make out if the car indicated to take the left and the cyclist assumed (always silly to assume anyway) it was going straight.

I couldn't count the number of times I crossed a road at such a junction only for a car to turn towards me and give me a look because I'm already half away across the road in front of them. Some think that because there's no other cars around there's no need to indicate.