JonEBGud wrote: » They should have a licence though. Anyone on the road should have a permit to show that they know the rules.
That_Guy wrote: » I've nearly been mowed down by cyclists running red lights as I'm about to cross the road. It's absolutely crazy yet they get away with it all the time! Nothing against cyclists really but if you're sharing the road with cars then abide by the same rules.
Dr Crippen wrote: » Now to my next couple of questions. Are you a good driver, follow all the rules of the road?
steamengine wrote: » Quite a lot has been made of the 200+ total fatality figure and how 12 cyclist fatalities somehow does not warrant the same attention. The comparison is a bogus one as it ignores the standard metric for road fatalities which is measured over distance, usually 'billion kilometres or miles'.
RainyDay wrote: » Indeed, I gathered that a few posts back. And you're quite entitled to your opinion. Hopefully, you'll get the point that the facts don't support your opinion, but perhaps not. Oh dear, I'm not sure that you're really getting the importance of evidence over personal experience. But regardless, yes, I drive. And I walk. Occasionally I levitate, but it's hard work. The answer to the other part of your question is on the thread.
CramCycle wrote: » A comparative measurement which has widely been debunked as inaccurate or unfair for what should be obvious reasons. Time travelled would make more sense but I am sure there are metrics a plenty to suit whatever your point was.
That_Guy wrote: » Nothing against cyclists really but if you're sharing the road with cars then abide by the same rules.
Sam Kade wrote: » Motor tax, there's no motor on a push bike hence no tax
CramCycle wrote: » I disagree, while I see vitriol on the roads the levels on Internet forums are in no way representative of the real world. 99% of drivers are engaging and nice to me. 99% of cyclists are safe and considerate.
Knasher wrote: » As metrics go, that one is inherently biased against cyclists. You are comparing a group of people who travel mostly in urban environments, against a group of people who travel very long distances on roads that have much fewer hazards. It would be shocking if that metric didn't find in favour of the latter group. A fairer metric would be to limit yourself to an urban environment. I don't know what the result would be, but at least you'd be closer to comparing like with like.
MadDog76 wrote: » I disagree .......... I'm more than happy for some of my Tax money to go towards registering cyclists in some way.
roadrunner16 wrote: » people will always compare them to motorists, because they always be at each others throats !!
steamengine wrote: » it ignores the standard metric for road fatalities which is measured over distance, usually 'billion kilometres or miles'. .
steamengine wrote: » The comparison is a bogus one as it ignores the standard metric for road fatalities which is measured over distance, usually 'billion kilometres or miles'.
Fatality rates by mode per billion passenger kilometres: 2003 - 2012 average 93 motorcycles - 31 pedestrians - 27 pedal cycles - 2 cars - 1 van 0 - bus/coach - 0 rail - 0 air
07Lapierre wrote: » Maybe motorists should have to pay some sort of tax as well!! That'll put manners on them!
Knasher wrote: » Drivers have to do a theory test, and there are already punishments for bad driving. I see bad drivers every day though.
MadDog76 wrote: » I disagree.
Dr Crippen wrote: » Oh by the way rainy day have you answered my question yet?
MadDog76 wrote: » It's a good question, I too would be interested in Rainy's answer ........ Rainy?
MadDog76 wrote: » That's just a diversionary answer ......... money can always be "better" spent. :rolleyes:Hey, don't spend money on making our playgrounds safer, use the money for schools ....... No! Don't waste money on schools, use it for hospitals ........ and on and on it goes. :rolleyes: Btw if you want to discuss the motorists that never did a Driving Test then start a thread on that topic and I'll happily discuss it with you there .......... if you want to discuss the Secondary School Curriculum then start a thread on that topic and I'll happily discuss that with you there ......... this thread is about cyclists doing the Theory Test.
Dr Crippen wrote: » Bullied people? Oh by the way rainy day have you answered my question yet?
RainyDay wrote: » How often does this happen? I heard about a mother pushing a buggy who scratched a car - do they need insurance too? And kids on scooters? Ah, the old 'cyclists should be seen and not heard' approach. You do see a lot of this on the road, as some motorists have some kind of superiority complex around their entitlement to their road. Often, when bullied people stand up to bullies, they get told how whiney and complainey they are. A start to what - what specific benefit can arise? No, it can't. That's what public policy is all about. It's not easy, but good research and evidence-based policy making keeps you on the right road. The alternative is your bar-stool based policy-making approach. It tends to end badly, like our eVoting disaster. Bully for you, though that's not a great reason for other people to see their tax money going towards an initiative that has no particular benefits or goals and is doomed to failure from the start.
Volthar wrote: » Personal and 3rd party insurance for cyclists would be welcome. So far only UK companies offer such and it is quite pricey at about €80 pa. At the same time cyclist who scratches new car's side, if caught, faces few grand expenses.
pmasterson95 wrote: » I used to actually respect cyclists. Then I joined boards and noticed how whiney and complainey they are. I wouldnt expected talking to a group would result in such drastic loss of respect.
MadDog76 wrote: » It would be a start ........
MadDog76 wrote: » That's just a diversionary answer ......... money can always be "better" spent. :rolleyes:
CramCycle wrote: » That's not diversionary, it's a clear plan which will achieve more for road safety than a theory test for cyclists ever will. It's called joined up thinking. I presume the poster meant diverting the funds you were going to appropriate for this theory test and achieve something that will be both effective and useful, rather than another pointless black hole quango.
MadDog76 wrote: » That's just a diversionary answer ......... money can always be "better" spent. :rolleyes:Hey, don't spend money on making our playgrounds safer, use the money schools ....... No! Don't waste money on schools, use it for hospitals ........ and on and on it goes. :rolleyes:
roadrunner16 wrote: » Not really, better places the money could be spent, road safety in schools ? driving as part of the secondary school curriculum? I can't see if having a big impact of road deaths or on injuries, if you say its a start what would be the next step ? better education for pedestrians ? retests regularly ? or what about all the people that never did driving tests ?
RainyDay wrote: » Building public policy around the experiences of any one individual does not make for good policy. Perhaps if you attempted to explain the point of a theory test given the obvious lack of impact on large sections of the driving population, your proposal might get some traction. So are you saying that the driving theory test is a waste of time? You asked a pile of questions which had all been answered earlier in the thread, which I patiently answered for you again. I don't recall your outstanding question, but I'd bet a fiver that it has already been answered. Have you bothered going through the earlier pages of the thread? The funny thing is, that you've got all those answers already, but you've chosen to ignore them. Remember the answers about the proven pointlessness of the theory test, the cost benefit, the lack of clarity around benefits arising?
DDC1990 wrote: » I think pedestrians should have to do a theory test. I was driving through Dublin, 6 people walked across the road in front of me on a red man at one junction alone. Not one of these people had a high viz jacket or a helmet on, they could have been killed or dented my car if I hit them. They don't even pay road tax and they cross several roads a day.
