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

smash

CramCycle wrote: »

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.

It would pay for itself over and over. Both with a registration fee and the ability to issue fines based on acts caught on camera.

RainyDay wrote: »

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?

We're not discussing reducing death tolls, you are. We're discussing the ability to easily identify a cyclist so a fine can be issued. This should also make cyclists more cautious on the roads.

[Deleted User]

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...

Speaking on behalf of all cyclists yes. I have fantastic hair and as a result all other cyclists have sworn off helmets even those who wear them.

[Deleted User]

smash wrote: »

It would pay for itself over and over. Both with a registration fee and the ability to issue fines based on acts caught on camera.

We're not discussing reducing death tolls, you are. We're discussing the ability to easily identify a cyclist so a fine can be issued. This should also make cyclists more cautious on the roads.

No it would discourage cycling increasing motorised traffic, Increasing pollution and negating the health benefits to the portion that currently cycle who will quit.

What is the overall societal benefit from increasing penalising of cyclists?

smash

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

No it would discourage cycling increasing motorised traffic, Increasing pollution and negating the health benefits to the portion that currently cycle who will quit.

So what your saying is if the law was to actively act upon cyclists breaking the rules of the road because they're identifiable, that people would stop cycling? Instead of you know, stop breaking the law...

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

What is the overall societal benefit from increasing penalising of cyclists?

Road manners, revenue increase. There's 2 points.

jimgoose

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

No it would discourage cycling increasing motorised traffic, Increasing pollution and negating the health benefits to the portion that7 currently cycle who will quit...

Exactly. It's all good!

CramCycle

smash wrote: »

So what your saying is if the law was to actively act upon cyclists breaking the rules of the road because they're identifiable, that people would stop cycling? Instead of you know, stop breaking the law...

Road manners, revenue increase. There's 2 points.

I don't break the law now so it will make no difference to me but I still see the stupidity of the idea.

It will not increase road manners. Much like motorists, every time I report a motorist it becomes a case of you said they said and nothing happens. Same will happen to cyclists. if a serious crime is committed, Gardai can and will track down the cyclist.

Revenue is also a ridiculous point. It will never generate enough revenue to cover it's operational cost. But please, continue with your ill informed rhetoric.

smash

CramCycle wrote: »

I don't break the law now so it will make no difference to me but I still see the stupidity of the idea.

It will not increase road manners. Much like motorists, every time I report a motorist it becomes a case of you said they said and nothing happens. Same will happen to cyclists. if a serious crime is committed, Gardai can and will track down the cyclist.

Revenue is also a ridiculous point. It will never generate enough revenue to cover it's operational cost. But please, continue with your ill informed rhetoric.

Can you stop relating everything back to what you report and how nothing happens. Every car in the country has reg plates and every single day these plates are detected for various traffic offences and the drivers get fines in the post. It's an automated service and it works and it does make motorists more perceptive on the roads. For cyclists it would be the exact same!

At a busy junction at €50 a pop there'd be massive revenue generated from cyclists breaking red lights. A lot more than cars.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

smash wrote: »

...revenue...

Wrong reasons there buddy

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

It would pay for itself over and over. Both with a registration fee and the ability to issue fines based on acts caught on camera.

Is there any chance that you could run some numbers on this? The Garda speed camera contract cost us €17m in 2014, and brought in €18m in fines between November 2010 to the end of June 2014, so it is not exactly paying for itself.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/17m-for-speed-camera-firm-in-2014-314222.html

I'd be very interested in seeing your figures as to how a system for cyclists would pay for itself. Please do take into account the impact of your expected behavioral change, as the numbers of cyclists breaking the lights steadily declines over time.

smash wrote: »

We're not discussing reducing death tolls, you are. We're discussing the ability to easily identify a cyclist so a fine can be issued. This should also make cyclists more cautious on the roads.

Who is this 'we' that you speak of? Is 'we' really 'you'?

And let's just for the sake of arguement say that you do achieve your objective of 'more cautious cyclists on the roads' - what benefit arises from this? How does this make life better for you or me?

smash wrote: »

So what your saying is if the law was to actively act upon cyclists breaking the rules of the road because they're identifiable, that people would stop cycling? Instead of you know, stop breaking the law...

Well yes, it would. People are not logical. People act in all kinds of irrational ways all the time. If people acted logically, then developing public policy would be easy. They don't, so it's not. With any public policy initiative, you need to be very, very careful about unintended consequences. Good examples of this can been when mandatory cycle helmet laws were implemented in other countries. Bad policy makers expected that all cyclists would just buy helmets. Many didn't - they stopped cycling instead, leading to bigger traffic jams as they got back into their cars and poorer public health. There is a very big possibility that your proposed idea here will have similar impacts. Would you think about maybe doing some serious research as to how such measures have gone down in other countries?

smash wrote: »

Road manners, revenue increase. There's 2 points.

Revenue increase is highly questionable, given the figures quoted above for the Garda system and the absence of any figures at all from yourself.

So that leaves 'road manners'. Are we really, really going to change public policy to bring about better manners? How about a hi-vis registration system for smokers then, to stop them dropping their butts on the ground? And a hi-vis registration system for farters, to stop them farting in public places? And if those options sound ridiculous, step back and take another look at our proposal.

jimgoose wrote: »

Exactly. It's all good!

Yes, it does seem that many of these recommendations are about some kind of small-minded intention to punish cyclists for cycling, more than anything else. THanks for confirming this.

smash

@RainyDay why are you talking about speed vans now? Earlier you were more than happy with a red light camera system and my suggestion would mean that if implemented then the red light camera system would generate more revenue instead of it just catching unidentifiable cyclists and identifiable motorists. Seems like you just want to do what you want and get away with it. You have an "anyone but me" attitude.

RainyDay

Dr Crippen wrote: »

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

There might be a typo in the bolded bit.

So yes, I agree that the licence does ensure some sort of proficiency with rules and laws of the road at the time of taking the test. Does this have any significant impact on driver behaviour in the long term?

Dr Crippen

Yes the word should be simplify, you always remember your driving test &#55357;&#56836; I believe it does impact driver behaviour but maybe that's just me.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

@RainyDay why are you talking about speed vans now? Earlier you were more than happy with a red light camera system and my suggestion would mean that if implemented then the red light camera system would generate more revenue instead of it just catching unidentifiable cyclists and identifiable motorists. Seems like you just want to do what you want and get away with it. You have an "anyone but me" attitude.

Thanks for the clarification. In the absence of any numbers about the cost of a registration system, it was hard to see exactly where you were going with it.

So again, I'll ask;
- do you have any estimate for the costs of a registration system
- have you considered the impact of changing behaviour in your analysis
- have you considered the impact of unintended consequences (less people cycling, more people driving)
- have considered the opportunity cost of not addressing motoring issues, and the associated death toll
- have you considered the increased risk arising from wearing hi-vis in summer months

and one more - do the red light cameras already purchased work for picking out numbers printed on hi-vis jackets on the backs of cyclists?

And the final one - what problem is this going to fix again, and why would we want to fix it?

RainyDay

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Yes the word should be simplify, you always remember your driving test �� I believe it does impact driver behaviour but maybe that's just me.

I'm still not getting your original point, tbh.

Anyway, would you have any explanation for why so many drivers break red lights, break speed limits, use the phone while driving etc, given your understanding of impact of the driving test?

Dr Crippen

Well there are many many more that don't do does things either, like cyclists and those good drivers have sat a test or at least paid for lessons.

MadDog76

There!! I said it

RainyDay

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Well there are many many more that don't do does things either, like cyclists and those good drivers have sat a test or at least paid for lessons.

Is there any connection between drivers who have paid for lessons and driver behaviour in later years?

Grandpa Hassan

I'm really still not clear what the problem is exactly with cyclists which is more than them being an annoyance to some.

Pinch Flat

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

I'm really still not clear what the problem is exactly with cyclists which is more than them being an annoyance to some.

Convenient scape goat. Just over 2,000,000 cars on the road - double the number of just over 20 years ago. Half of the population now own a car and people drive everywhere - Even if the distances are relatively short. Leads to massive congestion in all our urban areas, delayed / inefficient / unpredictable journeys, frustration, spiralling motoring costs, anger - there has to be someone to blame, right?

Dr Crippen

RainyDay wrote: »

Is there any connection between drivers who have paid for lessons and driver behaviour in later years?

As a driver and a cyclist I would there is, that's my opinion based on the fact I have done the theory and driving test.

Burning Bridges

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...

IF we drivers were forced to wear helmets, it would save quite a few lives, do you think that we should be forced to wear helmets in our cars?

smash

Burning Bridges wrote: »

IF we drivers were forced to wear helmets, it would save quite a few lives, do you think that we should be forced to wear helmets in our cars?

Sure. And full nomex racing suits too

Beasty

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...

Firstly I'll declare an interest here - I always wear a helmet when cycling, and personally have little doubt that doing so saved my life in an accident I had last year

However have a read through this thread and you will start to appreciate it's not as straightforward as that. There are certainly circumstances where wearing a helmet can increase risks, and there are strong arguments each way on this one

Chips Lovell

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...

If you saw my hair you'd understand. It looks fantastic.

smash

Beasty wrote: »

However have a read through this thread and you will start to appreciate it's not as straightforward as that. There are certainly circumstances where wearing a helmet can increase risks, and there are strong arguments each way on this one

A brief glimpse of that thread didn't lead me to any reason for not wearing one other than a few saying that compulsory helmet wearing in other countries didn't save lives. This just sounds defiant and in my opinion it still isn't a reason to not wear one. For every person saying no, there seems to be 2/3 saying yes.

[Deleted User]

smash wrote: »

So what your saying is if the law was to actively act upon cyclists breaking the rules of the road because they're identifiable, that people would stop cycling? Instead of you know, stop breaking the law...

Road manners, revenue increase. There's 2 points.

Yes i am saying that introducing registration for cyclists is likely to reduce casual users use of bikes as a transport mode.
Just because someone is registered does not have a direct link reduction in offences.
Look at mobile phone use in cars, is this affected by registration?

Using police resources to enforce the law on cyclists would probably also not be viewed as effective use of those resources by the garda.

Jawgap

smash wrote: »

A brief glimpse of that thread didn't lead me to any reason for not wearing one other than a few saying that compulsory helmet wearing in other countries didn't save lives. This just sounds defiant and in my opinion it still isn't a reason to not wear one. For every person saying no, there seems to be 2/3 saying yes.

Well we could re-invent that thread here, but unlike air bags and seat belts in cars, the evidence is not as clear cut for helmets.

.....and for the record I always wear a helmet when cycling - I'm totally convinced it offers fantastic protection from nagging family members, ill informed commentators and the general impositions of the nanny state

I'm less convinced it will offer me any protection above about 20km/hr - and could, in preventing one type of injury (imapcts to the head), cause more serious, torsional ones to the neck.

JamJamJamJam

smash wrote: »

A brief glimpse of that thread didn't lead me to any reason for not wearing one other than a few saying that compulsory helmet wearing in other countries didn't save lives. This just sounds defiant and in my opinion it still isn't a reason to not wear one. For every person saying no, there seems to be 2/3 saying yes.

It's not about opinions, it's about a population-based observation that lives may not be saved overall. The point is that public campaigns for safe cycling may be more harmful than good if they insist that wearing a helmet is necessary. Equally, if it was illegal to cycle without a helmet, that might save no lives. However, for any individual, they should absolutely wear a helmet if they feel safer doing it and that's what they want to do. It's counter-intuitive at first, and it took a bit of reading before I was convinced, but they are some fairly sound arguments worth looking into.

Because of the slight complexity, however, the number of people saying yes or no on that thread has little reflection on what would improve road safety.

smash

Jawgap wrote: »

Well we could re-invent that thread here, but unlike air bags and seat belts in cars, the evidence is not as clear cut for helmets.

.....and for the record I always wear a helmet when cycling - I'm totally convinced it offers fantastic protection from nagging family members, ill informed commentators and the general impositions of the nanny state

I'm less convinced it will offer me any protection above about 20km/hr - and could, in preventing one type of injury (imapcts to the head), cause more serious, torsional ones to the neck.

Weight it up. Brain damage & possibly death or a neck injury which would probably happen along side the brain injury anyway.

CramCycle

smash wrote: »

A brief glimpse of that thread didn't lead me to any reason for not wearing one other than a few saying that compulsory helmet wearing in other countries didn't save lives. This just sounds defiant and in my opinion it still isn't a reason to not wear one. For every person saying no, there seems to be 2/3 saying yes.

Not just defiant but statistically, true. At a population level, in regards cyclists, it does not save lives. Everyone has their anecdotes, some for, a few against, but at a population level, it does nothing.

As for the hair thing, mine is a mess, well, what little remains, if anything my hair is a good reason to wear a helmet.

Anyway, if you had read it more throughly, the big thing was that making it compulsory reduced cyclist numbers, which increases the burden on the healthcare system in years to come as well as in high population density areas, increases traffic congestion.