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!
Comments
-
-
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.
0 -
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?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.
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.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.
A start to what - what specific benefit can arise?It would be a start ........
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.That's just a diversionary answer ......... money can always be "better" spent. :rolleyes:
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 .......... I'm more than happy for some of my Tax money to go towards registering cyclists in some way.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
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 ?0 -
-
-
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 tax0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Luckily it goes into a pot so you don't know where it goes.I disagree .......... I'm more than happy for some of my Tax money to go towards registering cyclists in some way.
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).roadrunner16 wrote: »people will always compare them to motorists, because they always be at each others throats !!
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.steamengine wrote: »it ignores the standard metric for road fatalities which is measured over distance, usually 'billion kilometres or miles'. .0 -
-
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 73462
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
Nothing against cyclists really but if you're sharing the road with cars then abide by the same rules.)
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.0 -
-
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 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
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.steamengine wrote: »Time travelled doesn't come into it as bikes are faster in the city traffic - swings and roundabouts.
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.There is a bit of a trend here though - Dept. of Transport UK biased
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.high viz not effective,
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.helmets don't prevent injury,
???200+ fatalaties caused by motorists, :-
???? 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.The 'everybody out of step except my Johnny' syndrome appears to be alive and well with a minority coterie of cyclists0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement