Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cyclists should do a theory test!

1…3132343637…47

Comments

  • #992
    Dr Crippen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭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


  • #993
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭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.


  • #994
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭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...


  • #995
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭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.


  • #996
    Dr Crippen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • #997
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭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?


  • #998
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #999
    RobbieTheRobber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,126 ✭✭✭RobbieTheRobber


    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.

    Most self proclaimed free speech absolutists are giant big whiny snowflakes!



  • #1000
    Dr Crippen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭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.


  • #1001
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #1002
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1003
    Dr Crippen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭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.


  • #1004
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1005
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #1006
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1007
    Dr Crippen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭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.


  • #1008
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,987 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #1009
    Dr Crippen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭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


  • #1010
    Knasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1011
    check_six
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #1012
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭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...


  • #1013
    check_six
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭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.)


  • #1014
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,987 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    smash wrote: »
    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...

    Maybe take a few minutes to read up about it then, there is a helmet megathread over in the cycling forum for example.


  • #1015
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,388 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    This is just corruption.
    What is your definition of corruption? It seemed like common sense to me.

    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 have come off the bike a few times without a helmet, I was looking at seriously cracking the helmet if I had been wearing one. My head did not touch the ground but the wide helmet might have.

    If I was to wear a helmet 24/7 I imagine I would crack about 3-4 a year. As I have read up a bit about helmets if I did crack one I would not be going around saying my skull would have been smashed wide open and call people mad for not wearing them.

    It is supposed to be far more beneficial to wear a cycling style helmet in a car than on a bike, even when considering airbags and seatbelts.

    Thinking of it fundamentally and not following trends it would make more sense to me to wear a cycling style helmet while driving or while drinking, mandatory drinking helmets make far more sense. I would wear one if I went mountainbiking.


  • #1016
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,987 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    rubadub wrote: »
    I have come off the bike a few times without a helmet, I was looking at seriously cracking the helmet if I had been wearing one. My head did not touch the ground but the wide helmet might have.

    I got hit from the back while cycling once, the car slammed on the brakes and shot me through the rear window of a parked car. My elbows went up with instinct but due to my helmet my head caught the rear cross bar, my head would have missed it completely. I have permanent neck pain now, I will have for the rest of my life.

    There are stories of people saying helmets saved their life, and maybe they did, but it is possible the helmet stopped them reacting the way they should have without one.

    Studies would indicate there is no difference at population level, other peoples experiences paint them as essential, my own, both from my crash and the few falls I have seen over the years tell me I am better without one.

    Personally, people should make up their own mind. I certainly won't try and force my view on others.


  • #1017
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    smash wrote: »
    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...
    Yes, some are precious about their hair. The fetish for helmets is one of the reasons why more teenage girls drive themselves to school than cycle to school. Beware of unintended consequences of public policy measures. Saying 'it's for safety reasons' doesn't make it a good idea, particularly in the absence of good data showing benefits.
    Dr Crippen wrote: »
    We are talking about introducing a theory test for cyclists? where have you been?
    Really? Where have I been?

    I've been on this thread for the past week showing with clear facts and evidence that your 'wouldn't do any harm' idea would be a pointless and probably dangerous diversion. Is there any chance that you'd go back and read the discussions that have already taken place so I don't have to explain it all over again to your good self.
    Dr Crippen wrote: »
    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.
    'A lot of people on boards feel' - is that the standard for new public policy now? As far as I can make out, there are equally 'a lot of people on boards who don't feel' - but you seem to be ignoring them. You seem to be ignoring lots of things.

    If you don't know where I stand, go back and read the hundreds of previous posts, and you'll get a pretty clear understanding of where I stand. You know all those great ideas running round in your head right now? Others have come out will all those ideas over the past week, and I've clarified my position on all of them.
    Dr Crippen wrote: »
    So far you have mentioned the cost it would incur to implement this, have you any information or figures to back this up?
    Do you have information or figures? Do you think that perhaps you should get some of that information and figures before you go recommending a new initiative?
    Dr Crippen wrote: »
    This 200 plus figure you mention, how many are cyclists? How many are motorist on motorist.
    Again, is there any chance that you'd think about doing a little bit of research yourself? As it happens, the figure last year was about 12 cyclists. 12 too many of course, but a very small factor overall.

    So you tell me know why you want to focus on the 12, and not the other 188?
    Dr Crippen wrote: »
    As I mentioned I am a cyclist and firmly believe this would actually do more good than harm.
    With all due respect, your firm beliefs and my firm beliefs are entirely irrelevant. What matters are the facts - for example, the fact that all motorists do a theory test, but many still drive like they are at the bumpers in Bray. Why would you think a theory test will have any effect at all on cyclist behaviour?

    And more importantly, as I asked above, what actual problem are you trying to fix here?

    If I suggested that all dog owners should have a theory test in hygiene to stop the problem of dog poop on the pavement, would that be a great idea? Or a theory test for all alcohol drinkers to stop alcohol abuse, would that be a great idea?
    smash wrote: »
    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.
    Yes, many cyclists and many motorists still do break lights and change lanes without indicating, regardless of whether they've done a theory test or not. It's good to see that you're finally seeing through the pointlessness of a theory test.
    smash wrote: »
    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.
    Woah there cowboy - that's a big leap you're making right there. Why is that suddenly 'the only thing to do'. How about the other option (the one the Govt is actively working on) of bringing in Fixed Penalty Notices for cyclists without any need for the additional cost or bureaucracy required for hi-vis or registration systems - just as one other example, like? There are lots of other options too.

    But again, it would be helpful if we could clarify what actual problem we're trying to fix here? Is this just for academic purposes? Or will some actual benefit arise from getting cyclists to stop breaking red lights?

    And btw, hi-vis jackets don't actually increase visibility, except when they have lights (such as car headlights) shining on them. There have been cases in the UK where hi-vis jackets have actually reduced visibility during periods of bright sunshine (bright yellow jacket against bright yellow sun). So you might want to tread a little bit carefully, so you're not responsible for causing deaths through unintended consequences.


  • #1018
    Dr Crippen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭Dr Crippen


    check_six wrote: »
    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.

    Ah here, I agree it's not that simple but we can simply the need for various licenses all day long, ultimately the requirement of a license ensures some sort of proficiency with rules and laws of the road. I agree with the implementation of early education which I also posted


  • #1019
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    RainyDay wrote: »
    Woah there cowboy - that's a big leap you're making right there. Why is that suddenly 'the only thing to do'. How about the other option (the one the Govt is actively working on) of bringing in Fixed Penalty Notices for cyclists without any need for the additional cost or bureaucracy required for hi-vis or registration systems - just as one other example, like? There are lots of other options too.

    But again, it would be helpful if we could clarify what actual problem we're trying to fix here? Is this just for academic purposes? Or will some actual benefit arise from getting cyclists to stop breaking red lights?

    And btw, hi-vis jackets don't actually increase visibility, except when they have lights (such as car headlights) shining on them. There have been cases in the UK where hi-vis jackets have actually reduced visibility during periods of bright sunshine (bright yellow jacket against bright yellow sun). So you might want to tread a little bit carefully, so you're not responsible for causing deaths through unintended consequences.

    So you're not in favour of an identification system then... why is that?


  • #1020
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,987 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    smash wrote: »
    So you're not in favour of an identification system then... why is that?

    Because it costs a bomb and is solving an issue that does not exist and creating more problems that do not exist yet, its been explained quite clearly many times.


  • Advertisement
  • #1021
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    smash wrote: »
    So you're not in favour of an identification system then... why is that?

    For a start, because it's a big red herring and a diversion. If we want to reduce the death toll on the road, our first major priority should be to change the behaviour of motorists, given that motorists kill about 200 people each year and maim thousands of others.

    Do you want me to continue with the other reasons?


Advertisement