Cyclists should do a theory test!

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:

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.

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.

I disagree .......... I'm more than happy for some of my Tax money to go towards registering cyclists in some way.

RainyDay

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 â‚¬80 pa. At the same time cyclist who scratches new car's side, if caught, faces few grand expenses.

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?

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.

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.

MadDog76 wrote: »

It would be a start ........

A start to what - what specific benefit can arise?

MadDog76 wrote: »

That's just a diversionary answer ......... money can always be "better" spent. :rolleyes:

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.

MadDog76 wrote: »

I disagree .......... I'm more than happy for some of my Tax money to go towards registering cyclists in some way.

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.

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.

I disagree.

Bullied people?

Oh by the way rainy day have you answered my question yet?

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Bullied people?

Oh by the way rainy day have you answered my question yet?

It's a good question, I too would be interested in Rainy's answer ........ Rainy?

roadrunner16

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.

How is this a diversionary tactic ? you are asking should we spend money registering/ testing cyclists ? Im saying no we shouldn't because cyclists don't cause as many accidents as motorists, I think the money would be better spent on other things. I see where you are coming from though but I just don't think that it would have any difference on road deaths or injuries, so I don't see how it would be of major benefit, you seem to keep pulling people away from discussing motorists, when asking about cyclists , people will always compare them to motorists, because they always be at each others throats !! In the first post the question was posed from the point of view of a motorist , with cyclists causing a problem to them, well the facts are clear! should cyclists be forced to take a theory test to prevent them from slowing down motorists ? if yes then surely motorists should be made jump to more hoops in order to curtail road deaths!

and should people have to do two theory tests ? will my driver one be enough ? what age should they be imposed at ? eye tests involved ? for kids cycling to school ?

RainyDay

MadDog76 wrote: »

I disagree.

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.

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?

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.

07Lapierre

Knasher wrote: »

Drivers have to do a theory test, and there are already punishments for bad driving. I see bad drivers every day though.

Maybe motorists should have to pay some sort of tax as well!! That'll put manners on them!

Pinch Flat

07Lapierre wrote: »

Maybe motorists should have to pay some sort of tax as well!! That'll put manners on them!

Maybe the doors open for a "road tax", given the amount of people that believe they pay it? The government should consider it in top of the existing motor tax

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'.

Here are some figures taken from UK Dept of Transport. They are average figures from 2003 to 2012.

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

Looking at these figures then we see that odds of fatalities are 30 times more for motorcyclists, and, 10 times more for cyclists than cars. Looking at other sources give approximately the same ratios.

Knasher

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'.

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.

Luckily it goes into a pot so you don't know where it goes.

roadrunner16 wrote: »

people will always compare them to motorists, because they always be at each others throats !!

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. We often forget the good and only remember the bad. Try counting the number of people you see tomorrow on the roads, rough numbers, don't get distracted though. Remember the truly bad ones, put one over the other, you might be surprised how much safer our roads are than people think. As well as how much nicer they are, I have commuted in many countries, Ireland is one of 5 he better ones (although the standard of driving has room for improvement IMO).

steamengine wrote: »

it ignores the standard metric for road fatalities which is measured over distance, usually 'billion kilometres or miles'. .

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.

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.

Yet there is no problem when some posters on this thread compare motorists to cyclists nationwide ....... if it favours the cyclist of course.

jjpep

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.

Yep, you'd read this site and think there was a war on and then you go out on your bike or hop in the car and well....

Its all fairly sedate and boring. Which is good.

JonEBGud

Sam Kade wrote: »

Motor tax, there's no motor on a push bike hence no tax

They should have a licence though.
Anyone on the road should have a permit
to show that they know the rules.

That_Guy

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.

Beasty

That_Guy wrote: »

Nothing against cyclists really but if you're sharing the road with cars then abide by the same rules.

Most of the rules applicable to motorists also apply to cyclists (one of the interesting exceptions is speed limits which only apply to motorised vehicles

)

The biggest problem has been enforcement (which also remains an issue with motorists), although the introduction of FPNs will hopefully go a little way towards redressing the balance on that front.

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.

Levitate, excellent! I like to call my experience empirical research, combining both a qualitative and quantitative forms of data.

Speaking of which how do I collect my fiver ?

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.

Time travelled doesn't come into it as bikes are faster in the city traffic - swings and roundabouts.

There is a bit of a trend here though - Dept. of Transport UK biased, high viz not effective, helmets don't prevent injury, 200+ fatalaties caused by motorists, :-

The 'everybody out of step except my Johnny' syndrome appears to be alive and well with a minority coterie of cyclists

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.

Now to my next couple of questions.

Are you a good driver, follow all the rules of the road?

RainyDay

JonEBGud wrote: »

They should have a licence though.
Anyone on the road should have a permit
to show that they know the rules.

How's that licence/permit working out to show that drivers '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.

And yet, road traffic statistics show 200 people each year killed by motorists and zero people killed by cyclists.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Now to my next couple of questions.

Are you a good driver, follow all the rules of the road?

Am I a good driver - Yes.
Do I follow all the rules of the road all of the time? - No, absolutely not - like every other motorist I see, I break the speed limit all the time. The last time I stuck to the speed limit was one of my first two driving test attempts which I failed. When I found a decent instructor who advised me not to obsess about the limit, I passed.

Most road users break the law most of the time. I don't have any huge difficulty with that. I have a huge difficulty with the hypocrisy of moaning about cyclists break red lights from people who routinely break the speed limit while driving.

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'.

What 'standard' are you referring to here that uses this particular metric?

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.

This cycling forum doesn't agree with you, and the stats back up those I quoted from the Dept of Transport, UK.

http://cyclinguphill.com/safe-cycling-stats-cycle-casualties/

Relative risk of different forms of transport – Cycling vs Car vs Pedestrian vs Motorbike

These statistics show casualties per billion km travelled. They produce a slightly skewed figure in that car drivers will clock up many miles on motorways, which tend to have much lower accident rates per miles travelled, compared to rural and urban areas. Nevertheless, it still shows how much safer car journeys are compared to cycling or walking. Which is to be expected. In a car you are protected by crumple zones and a block of steel. Walking and cycling, you are not.

steamengine wrote: »

Time travelled doesn't come into it as bikes are faster in the city traffic - swings and roundabouts.

I imagine over the day it averages out quite a bit, cars being far faster at non rush hour times. Knashers metric of Urban travel comparison would also be more consistent and fair. There are loads of unfair comparisons I have seen used over the years, the urban one or time spent seem to be the fairest (IMO). I don't know the numbers for the urban one but I imagine it paints a better picture of motoring than the time spent one.

There is a bit of a trend here though - Dept. of Transport UK biased

Widely accepted that they are, not their fault, road engineers are told to get traffic moving and no one will leave their cars, they can only plan in many places based on instruction rather than vision, so they plan for the problem instead of trying to plan to fix it. Alot of our road traffic engineers seem to follow the UK model as our closest neighbour. In some places this is changing and improving but not everywhere.

high viz not effective,

Not effective at what people think its effective for. It's not for night time use, they are more properly referred to as day glo jackets in many places, and if a cyclist at night has the legally required lights, then they are in fact redundant. This said you have the RSA handing them out left, right and centre rather than getting gardai to fine those without lights and therefore reinforce the idea that Hi vis is a suitable replacement, it's not. The one time the RSA did hand out lights, they were so substandard that they were not visible from a few metres away.

helmets don't prevent injury,

In some cases they do, in some cases they don't, and in some cases they make it worse. No person of sound mind would make policy based on their gut feeling, hence why they are not mandatory, and this is ignoring all the other negatives. Look around you on your journey, the majority wear helmets anyway.

200+ fatalaties caused by motorists, :-

???

The 'everybody out of step except my Johnny' syndrome appears to be alive and well with a minority coterie of cyclists

???? Really, I have studied most of the above and made reasonable deductions based on available evidence, even if intuition sometimes tell me different. People making claims about what is needed and what should be done based on grossly exaggerated anecdotal evidence, is more idiotic than I can comprehend.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Now to my next couple of questions.

Are you a good driver, follow all the rules of the road?

I am a safe driver, not a good one. I can rally quite well off road and round Mondello but on the road, I accept that there are limitations on both my abilities and the abilities of those around me and drive accordingly, I stop on amber if it is safe, no one has rear ended me yet, a few have beeped their horn and went mental, not sure why as the light would have been red for them. I drive in the driving lane on the motorway, only moving out to overtake. I do find that while I rarely use it, driving in Dublin has made me quick to wake drivers up with a little toot as they drift between lanes when I am beside them.

steamengine wrote: »

This cycling forum doesn't agree with you, and the stats back up those I quoted from the Dept of Transport, UK.

They don't back up, they are the same metric, which many people with any basic grasp of statistics and applications will tell you is fundamentally flawed. This said, if you look at the conclusion, the same idea rainyday has tooted on about is found. If you want safer roads, target motorists.

Do I follow all the rules of the road all of the time? - No, absolutely not - like every other motorist I see, I break the speed limit all the time. The last time I stuck to the speed limit was one of my first two driving test attempts which I failed. When I found a decent instructor who advised me not to obsess about the limit, I passed.

Unfortunately that's a bad instructor regardless of whether you passed.

Most road users break the law most of the time. I don't have any huge difficulty with that. I have a huge difficulty with the hypocrisy of moaning about cyclists break red lights from people who routinely break the speed limit while driving.

To be honest you seem to be hypocritical, you constantly throw out this statistic of 200+ people killed in motoring accidents, yet you openly admit to flaunting the recommended speed limits for our roads yourself, so in essence you are a dangerous motorist. Can you back up your claim that MOST road users break the law most of the time, where did you get this information. My next question is, do you feel that the theory test, the requirement for testing for automated vehicles is a waste of time? Do you feel it helped you in any way?