Cyclists should do a theory test!

Jawgap wrote: »

Actually, they're not.

Fine. Long may it continue!

jimgoose wrote: »

Like I said, a little cycling-specific material to help riders keep themselves safe while mixing it up with heavier stuff on the road would be nice. That's all. Obviously cyclists aren't mowing down pedestrians and writing off cars, but a lot of them are getting hurt, sadly and needlessly in my view. Be careful out there, live long and prosper.

Actually, they're not.

Tony EH wrote: »

The vast majority of cyclists are safe riders, regardless of the perception of "epidemics", etc. The reason is simple. You HAVE TO BE. Because if you're not, you're the one that comes off a cropper nearly every time.

If you were to believe some car drivers TDs, you'd think that every single cyclist on our roads are flying around without a single care in the world, mowing down pedestrians and smashing into cars willy-nilly.

It's laughable.

In addition, and I think someone else has already mentioned it, a large number (if not most) cyclists are motorists too, so they've already done a theory test and/or driving test.

FYP

Is there any evidence to show that theory tests have improved driver or motorcyclist behaviour?

My own view is that vigorous enforcement has been more effective, and in that vein the introduction of FPNs for certain cycling offences, if enforced, will probably have a greater impact on cycling behaviour than any rote learned theory test will have.

Tony EH wrote: »

The vast majority of cyclists are safe riders, regardless of the perception of "epidemics", etc. The reason is simple. You HAVE TO BE. Because if you're not, you're the one that comes off a cropper nearly every time.

If you were to believe some car drivers, you'd think that every single cyclist on our roads are flying around without a single care in the world, mowing down pedestrians and smashing into cars willy-nilly.

It's laughable.

In addition, and I think someone else has already mentioned it, a large number (if not most) cyclists are motorists too, so they've already done a theory test and/or driving test.

Like I said, a little cycling-specific material to help riders keep themselves safe while mixing it up with heavier stuff on the road would be nice. That's all. Obviously cyclists aren't mowing down pedestrians and writing off cars, but a lot of them are getting hurt, sadly and needlessly in my view. Be careful out there, live long and prosper.

CramCycle wrote: »

The only time I have ever mentioned about speed limits being changed is, first, in housing estates, I have kids, but I was told by others that if I am outside and my child gets hit by a car on a housing estate that it is my fault as a bad parent, not the fault of the few cars that go well over 60 in my small estate and second that councils should have more stable and clear cut discretionary powers, certain roads are not fit for their speed limits, and unfortunately some road users see the limit as a target rather than a limit.

More often than not local residents will object to speed bumps chicanes etc for housing estates, which occurred in mine for example but I agree with you on that point.

Nope, I never had to sit it but I did take one when my daughter was doing hers online, the theory test was and is a joke, I never studied, just put in the answers I believed they wanted and that was that. The only thing I can think it may have a use for is to ban anyone who gets below 75% from leaving their house without supervision as they are clearly a danger to themselves and others.

So are you saying the theory test for a first time driver is a waste of time? Your sarcasm at the end is very good I do like it but inappropriate for a discussion like this, I get your point but belittling a process which was introduced to promote road safety and to probably attempt to infomr drivers and reduce deaths is a little out of place

Most of my driving etiquette I picked up from my Dad, he drove for years in the UK. Most of his learning came from experience and from other drivers telling him, that's not the way to do things. When he came back to Ireland he was shocked at some of the common safety principles that while not law, do not seem to exist here. My own view, I have stated before is that we are unusual in that unlike the US or the UK, we don't have a high percentage of law abiding road users. We have about 80% who get by day to day with following the rules and not really reacting to anything outside their bubble, which is not great but seems to be fine, then we have half of those left who have no concept of space, awareness, the rules, danger, harm caused, risk assessment etc. and then we have the other half who are potentially some of the best and most observant drivers ever seen, so skilled in fact that their reaction times and general common sense driving seems to hide the poor 10% driving skills.
I think cyclists are broadly the same but that just an opinion and the numbers are probably not even close to the truth.

I would have thought 80% road safety compliance was fairly good?

I cycled on the roads in London from about the age of 5, my parents used to tell me to cycle on the footpath but whenever I was out of sight, I was on the road, I indicated, stopped at junctions, based solely on my observations on what other road users do. I got used to proper road observation from driving around with my father while he was in a lorry, he used to talk me through why he drove in a certain fashion and what he was looking out for, he would point out issues that he could see and that he had to account for as he would not be able to see them in his own vehicle. I cycled in rural Ireland from the age of 9, i drove tractors on farms from 12yo and on the road from 16, I got my full license a week after my 18th, I got a license for every vehicle after that as soon as I could, its a great skill to have that will see you employed in many countries if I ever went abroad.

Good work, many strings to your bow in fairness

My only recommendations for testing and education are, as I have said many times, national school training (helps parents bad habits becoming ingrained), Junior cert education to stop embedding during teenage years, on top of this. After that, enforcement, enforcement, enforcement. The truth is, test all you want, but as we have all heard if you have done your driving test, people will say to you, as if its a moment of pride you tricked the examiner, "you will ever have to drive like that again". Some people will never learn, and these need social pressure and then fines. FPNs will do this for cyclists if enforced, ANPR cameras will do this for drivers if they are unmarked.

Fines lead to better behaviour, large scale better behaviour leads to societal pressure.

I agree with you on your last point but still hold firm on my belief that some form of theory test or as you mentioned introducing it into the school curriculum would benefit many cyclists and future motorists too!

steamengine wrote: »

How quick you are to dismiss the per billion kilometre stat.

Because its non sensical, cars travel at far higher speeds, have motorways which have low accident rates which skew the stats dramatically. Either make the setting common i.e. urban comparison only, or make it with a more useful metric eg time spent, or if you insist on the per billion km, adapt it to common sense, taking into account the ability to travel that far, divide it by average speed (giggle, math win).

Using one's common sense and anecdotal evidence alone

Well thats not a great start

most reasonable people would accept that motorcycling is potentially more dangerous than motoring. Those statistics back that up clearly. Similarly with cycling.

Using your "evidence" I have found driving to be more dangerous, thats why we don't use anecdoetal evidence for policy, it is flawed.

Not that it necessarily follows that if you cycle for long enough you will be killed, but the stats show the odds are increased tenfold at least compared to cars. Parse and analyse it whatever way you like, but they are the cold hard facts.

They aren't though, they are a representation of the facts in a biased manner. Unless you compare cyclists and motorists in similar surrondings, therefore removing as much bias as possible, your stat falls apart. Motorists can cover huge distances by motorway, relatively safely, therefore disproportionately skewing the figures.

I know the stats are from the same source, but cyclinguphill portray those stats the same way, and acknowledge that car driving is safer.

Did you read his conclusions? I don't like the page because I see flaws with the data from the outset and the way it is presented, but i do alot of stats work so maybe I am biased to pick out flaws with others work.
His conclusion states that walking is four times more dangerous than cycling but gives no regard as to why. Then he refers to drivers being the biggest source of danger to other road users and cites mobile phone use and a need for better planning, but never mentions these once before this point, its like reading tabloid journalism. He may be right, he might not but such a poorly thought out piece of drivel doesn't carry much weight with me. I don't know why you picked cyclinguphills website as a source, when he clearly just downloaded stats for pretty graphs, and even though they were flawed, he came up with a non conclusion that referred to things he never mentioned before. He will be writing for the red tops soon enough, I have no doubt.

Thanks - I meant, the volume shows the level of agreement with the OP. TBH I have to agree with 90% of his post, cyclists are clearly demonstrating an alarming level of incompetence on the roads. Cycling is the last free transport frontier, but I feel that a sizeable minority and their apologists are mucking it up for everybody else. Not that some four-wheeled drivers are heading for sainthood either, but it's obscuring the point of this thread.

The point is though, despite this minority, they are not doing much damage. Early education will take care of the majority of the next generation, enforcement will help the current road users.

RainyDay

Dr Crippen wrote: »

No he was a bad instructor if he told you that, that's a fact

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Point taken, I accept your point

Does this mean that you now accept my point (which is basically the same as his point)?

Dr Crippen wrote: »

If I have to explain that to you, then you are a lost cause. Any driver should be aware of the speed limit in all areas urban or city. Yes I adhere to the speed limit, as I don't want to injure my passengers or other motorists and importantly cyclists. I am surprised you condone this as you throw out the road death statistic very frequently, yet you flaunt the speed limit, that's hypocrisy by its very definition.

Could you cut the drama and answer the question please. How did you work out that any motorist who breaks the speed limit is dangerous? So if I drive at 51kmph in a 50kmph area, I'm a dangerous driver then?

Dr Crippen wrote: »

I dont care how fast other motorists are going, I adhere to the rules of the road, simple as that, lead by example!!

If you don't notice a queue of other cars overtaking you all the time, you're not adhering to the speed limit, or you are wearing blinkers.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Rainyday, you are a bit all over the place with your replies I am asking these questions to give myself an understanding of your knowledge of the road. I have established that. There are no broadside attacks, or you could point them out to me?

I think it was fairly clear from the quoting that my 'broadside' response was directed at the steamengine, not you.

steamengine wrote: »

How quick you are to dismiss the per billion kilometre stat. Using one's common sense and anecdotal evidence alone , most reasonable people would accept that motorcycling is potentially more dangerous than motoring. Those statistics back that up clearly. Similarly with cycling. Not that it necessarily follows that if you cycle for long enough you will be killed, but the stats show the odds are increased tenfold at least compared to cars. Parse and analyse it whatever way you like, but they are the cold hard facts. I know the stats are from the same source, but cyclinguphill portray those stats the same way, and acknowledge that car driving is safer.

You can acknowledge that using this particular metric, car driving is safer for the participant. That doesn't change the fact that motorists kill 200 people on our roads each year, while cyclists don't. So if you're interested in road safety, you know where to focus your priorities.

Tony EH

jimgoose wrote: »

Respectfully disagree, chief. I think a cyclist-centric theory test, done properly, would be an invaluable aid to helping cyclists keep themselves safe. And can you imagine the amount of dangerous **** there'd be without a theory test??

The whining from this particular motorist is because I'd rather the pedalling-bicyclists, and indeed everyone, were able to go about their business without getting hurt.

The vast majority of cyclists are safe riders, regardless of the perception of "epidemics", etc. The reason is simple. You HAVE TO BE. Because if you're not, you're the one that comes off a cropper nearly every time.

If you were to believe some car drivers, you'd think that every single cyclist on our roads are flying around without a single care in the world, mowing down pedestrians and smashing into cars willy-nilly.

It's laughable.

In addition, and I think someone else has already mentioned it, a large number (if not most) cyclists are motorists too, so they've already done a theory test and/or driving test.

SeanW wrote: »

But cyclists do the reverse all the time. If you ever see someone on boards (or elsewhere) looking for GPS trackers in cars to catch people going a few km over the speed limit on a grade separated dual carriageway or outside an urban periphery, calling for speed limits to be reduced for no reason than "as a test" or other such insanity, there's a goodly chance the person has "bike" or "cycl" in their username or otherwise self-identifies as a cyclist.

The only time I have ever mentioned about speed limits being changed is, first, in housing estates, I have kids, but I was told by others that if I am outside and my child gets hit by a car on a housing estate that it is my fault as a bad parent, not the fault of the few cars that go well over 60 in my small estate and second that councils should have more stable and clear cut discretionary powers, certain roads are not fit for their speed limits, and unfortunately some road users see the limit as a target rather than a limit.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Would you feel that having done a theory test, lessons or a driving test contributed in your road safety knowledge?

Nope, I never had to sit it but I did take one when my daughter was doing hers online, the theory test was and is a joke, I never studied, just put in the answers I believed they wanted and that was that. The only thing I can think it may have a use for is to ban anyone who gets below 75% from leaving their house without supervision as they are clearly a danger to themselves and others.

You drive safely and that's for obvious reasons but did preparing for driving equip you with road rules, or knowledge on various scenarios that could arise. Did it raise your awareness, for example to look in your left mirror when turning left etc.

Most of my driving etiquette I picked up from my Dad, he drove for years in the UK. Most of his learning came from experience and from other drivers telling him, that's not the way to do things. When he came back to Ireland he was shocked at some of the common safety principles that while not law, do not seem to exist here. My own view, I have stated before is that we are unusual in that unlike the US or the UK, we don't have a high percentage of law abiding road users. We have about 80% who get by day to day with following the rules and not really reacting to anything outside their bubble, which is not great but seems to be fine, then we have half of those left who have no concept of space, awareness, the rules, danger, harm caused, risk assessment etc. and then we have the other half who are potentially some of the best and most observant drivers ever seen, so skilled in fact that their reaction times and general common sense driving seems to hide the poor 10% driving skills.
I think cyclists are broadly the same but that just an opinion and the numbers are probably not even close to the truth.

I for one believe that having gone through all three of the RSA requirements I am a better motorist and cyclist for this. I would be of the opinion that these methods have influenced how I drive and cycle on main roads, urban roads and within the city, I believe that to say they do not have an effect on driver behavior is just not true.

I cycled on the roads in London from about the age of 5, my parents used to tell me to cycle on the footpath but whenever I was out of sight, I was on the road, I indicated, stopped at junctions, based solely on my observations on what other road users do. I got used to proper road observation from driving around with my father while he was in a lorry, he used to talk me through why he drove in a certain fashion and what he was looking out for, he would point out issues that he could see and that he had to account for as he would not be able to see them in his own vehicle. I cycled in rural Ireland from the age of 9, i drove tractors on farms from 12yo and on the road from 16, I got my full license a week after my 18th, I got a license for every vehicle after that as soon as I could, its a great skill to have that will see you employed in many countries if I ever went abroad.

My only recommendations for testing and education are, as I have said many times, national school training (helps parents bad habits becoming ingrained), Junior cert education to stop embedding during teenage years, on top of this. After that, enforcement, enforcement, enforcement. The truth is, test all you want, but as we have all heard if you have done your driving test, people will say to you, as if its a moment of pride you tricked the examiner, "you will ever have to drive like that again". Some people will never learn, and these need social pressure and then fines. FPNs will do this for cyclists if enforced, ANPR cameras will do this for drivers if they are unmarked.

Fines lead to better behaviour, large scale better behaviour leads to societal pressure.

Tony EH wrote: »

A theory test will make ZERO difference to anybody.

Drivers have to do a theory test an a huge amount of them are still dangerous **** on the road.

This is just more whining about cyclists from motorists who would rather just see EVERY cyclist off the road, regardless....

Respectfully disagree, chief. I think a cyclist-centric theory test, done properly, would be an invaluable aid to helping cyclists keep themselves safe. And can you imagine the amount of dangerous **** there'd be without a theory test??

The whining from this particular motorist is because I'd rather the pedalling-bicyclists, and indeed everyone, were able to go about their business without getting hurt.

Tony EH

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Insurance, licences, theory tests.....it's never going to happen. Get used to it. It would run counter to the governments, every governments, aim of increasing cycling and discouraging driving. And the Dublin bike thing would have to go as well. Cycling proficiency should be mandatory in schools....and that's about as far as you can go.

All the laws are there already. They just need to be enforced, if the gardai can be bothered.

Cyclist numbers are only going to increase

You know the Gardai aren't bothered? It's because accidents that are caused by cyclists are relatively MINISCULE.

Some can annoy people, some are absolute ejits. But actual accidents, at least accidents of any kind of note are really few and far between.

Tony EH

A theory test will make ZERO difference to anybody.

Drivers have to do a theory test an a huge amount of them are still dangerous **** on the road.

This is just more whining about cyclists from motorists who would rather just see EVERY cyclist off the road, regardless.

Thing is though, 99% of ALL accidents on our roads, both fatal and otherwise are caused by motorists, not cyclists.

Some cyclists may piss you off, I know I can get mightily pissed off with some. But, some car drivers are an active danger to your life. I see motorists do the wildest shit every single morning and evening and everybody who isn't one absolutely needs their head on a swivel watching out for the dangerous fools. In fact, the only way to be safe on the road is to treat EVERY motorist as a fool.

steamengine

CramCycle wrote: »

Did you read the link you put up? Cycling uphill just took the statts from the Dept, not provided there own. The per billion km is only a useful metric if comparing similar transport in different areas eg comparing motorist safety in the UK vs Ireland, not for vastly different modes of transport. The only reasonable deduction made is the safety in numbers argument doesn't hold well although with increases in overall traffic, it's hard to say as they haven't provided enough data i.e. if cycling rates tripled but death rates only went up by 1% it would be indicative that there is safety in numbers.

How quick you are to dismiss the per billion kilometre stat. Using one's common sense and anecdotal evidence alone , most reasonable people would accept that motorcycling is potentially more dangerous than motoring. Those statistics back that up clearly. Similarly with cycling. Not that it necessarily follows that if you cycle for long enough you will be killed, but the stats show the odds are increased tenfold at least compared to cars. Parse and analyse it whatever way you like, but they are the cold hard facts. I know the stats are from the same source, but cyclinguphill portray those stats the same way, and acknowledge that car driving is safer.

Handy scapegoat for what? What signatures? I am not blaming motorists for anything, I have generally quite pleasant and safe rides in, one bad scare this year but the car didn't hit me, it was just a scare. As I said before, the stories on here don't add up with the stats, and most peoples real world experiences.

I blame people for the stupidity I see.

As a matter of interest, I decided to keep a rough count of stupidity and do a tally in my head this morning. Nothing, over 10km, no motorist, no cyclist done anything wrong, it was odd, they must have known I was watching. A few peds walked into traffic but nothing that put anyone in danger, they were all observant and waving thanks to motorists and cyclists who stopped.

Thanks - I meant, the volume shows the level of agreement with the OP. TBH I have to agree with 90% of his post, cyclists are clearly demonstrating an alarming level of incompetence on the roads. Cycling is the last free transport frontier, but I feel that a sizeable minority and their apologists are mucking it up for everybody else. Not that some four-wheeled drivers are heading for sainthood either, but it's obscuring the point of this thread.

jimgoose wrote: »

No it isn't. The instructor in question advised him not to obsess about speed limits, not to ignore them. Learners do tend to get too hung up about speed limits and, until feathering the throttle to keep the speed consistently where you want it becomes muscle-memory, they end up going too slow or focusing on the speedo to the detriment of such trifles as road-signage and other road-users. Yes, I'm an instructor, among other things.

Point taken, I accept your point

Dr Crippen wrote: »

...Any driver should be aware of the speed limit in all areas urban or city. Yes I adhere to the speed limit, as I don't want to injure my passengers or other motorists and importantly cyclists. I am surprised you condone this as you throw out the road death statistic very frequently, yet you flaunt the speed limit, that's hypocrisy by its very definition...[/B]

Aware yes, like a fox crossing the water, Grasshopper. But what is appropriate for the Master is not necessarily appropriate for the Novice.

The driving tester disagreed with you. And given your enthusiasm for anecdotal evidence, that means I must be right - right?

No he was a bad instructor if he told you that, that's a fact

How did you work out that any motorist who breaks the speed limit is dangerous? And seriously, do you seriously stick to the urban speed limit all the time when you drive? Keep an eye on your speedo on the way home today, and see how frequently you go over 50 kpmh.

If I have to explain that to you, then you are a lost cause. Any driver should be aware of the speed limit in all areas urban or city. Yes I adhere to the speed limit, as I don't want to injure my passengers or other motorists and importantly cyclists. I am surprised you condone this as you throw out the road death statistic very frequently, yet you flaunt the speed limit, that's hypocrisy by its very definition.

Look around you. Try driving at the speed limit and watch the queue of drivers speeding past you, breaking the speed limit. Watch the Phibsboro video that I've posted several times showing drivers breaking red lights all the time.

I dont care how fast other motorists are going, I adhere to the rules of the road, simple as that, lead by example!!

I feel that the test that I did many, many years ago has a negligible impact on my day to day driving. My experience, my ongoing learning, my discusssions about cycling and road safety all have far more impact on my day to day driving.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

So would you prefer to scrap the theory test, driving test. By your admissions here you might need to retest which was recommended by a previous poster and one which I agree with too

I look forward to hearing your explanation about the value of the theory test to the line of motorists breaking red lights in the Phibsboro video.

Again are you recommending the scrapping of testing? I speak only for myself, not about everybody else as that would be inaccurate information.

Is there any chance that you'd try debating the issues, rather than these broadside attacks with no detail?

Rainyday, you are a bit all over the place with your replies I am asking these questions to give myself an understanding of your knowledge of the road. I have established that. There are no broadside attacks, or you could point them out to me?

Dr Crippen wrote: »

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

No it isn't. The instructor in question advised him not to obsess about speed limits, not to ignore them. Learners do tend to get too hung up about speed limits and, until feathering the throttle to keep the speed consistently where you want it becomes muscle-memory, they end up going too slow or focusing on the speedo to the detriment of such trifles as road-signage and other road-users. Yes, I'm an instructor, among other things.

Jawgap wrote: »

Lots of drivers have done theory tests (I got my licence pre the theory test requirement but I have an IAM licence) - it doesn't automatically make them better or more compliant drivers. Plus, there are plenty of situations where ethically a driver would be compelled to break a traffic law and would do so confident in the expectation they'd never be prosecuted.

I too got my car license pre-theory test, but I have nevertheless passed more theory tests than most normal people. There's nothing in it that isn't in the Rules of the Road, and it at least forces people to have some knowledge of that worthy tome. But of course, people always familiarised themselves with the RotR before they were bate into it. Right?? Right!

RainyDay

SeanW wrote: »

But cyclists do the reverse all the time. If you ever see someone on boards (or elsewhere) looking for GPS trackers in cars to catch people going a few km over the speed limit on a grade separated dual carriageway or outside an urban periphery, calling for speed limits to be reduced for no reason than "as a test" or other such insanity, there's a goodly chance the person has "bike" or "cycl" in their username or otherwise self-identifies as a cyclist.

That's what grinds my proverbial gears.

Hypocracy of all kinds grinds my gears, regardless of the source. But I'm not really sure that I've seen examples of the kind of hypocracy you describe in these discussions on boards.ie. Would you like to point out a few examples of what you mean?

Dr Crippen wrote: »

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

The driving tester disagreed with you. And given your enthusiasm for anecdotal evidence, that means I must be right - right?

Dr Crippen wrote: »

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.

How did you work out that any motorist who breaks the speed limit is dangerous? And seriously, do you seriously stick to the urban speed limit all the time when you drive? Keep an eye on your speedo on the way home today, and see how frequently you go over 50 kpmh.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

Can you back up your claim that MOST road users break the law most of the time, where did you get this information. [/B]

Look around you. Try driving at the speed limit and watch the queue of drivers speeding past you, breaking the speed limit. Watch the Phibsboro video that I've posted several times showing drivers breaking red lights all the time.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

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?[/B]

I feel that the test that I did many, many years ago has a negligible impact on my day to day driving. My experience, my ongoing learning, my discusssions about cycling and road safety all have far more impact on my day to day driving.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

CramCycle wrote: »

I for one believe that having gone through all three of the RSA requirements I am a better motorist and cyclist for this. I would be of the opinion that these methods have influenced how I drive and cycle on main roads, urban roads and within the city, I believe that to say they do not have an effect on driver behavior is just not true.

I look forward to hearing your explanation about the value of the theory test to the line of motorists breaking red lights in the Phibsboro video.

steamengine wrote: »

How come the Dept of Transport and the CyclingUphill forum have got it so wrong ?

Of course - 'Everyone is out of step except my Johnny'. OP has a point, I'm a cyclist and I can see it - look at all the signatures - but hey, keep blaming the motorists - they're a handy scapegoat.

Is there any chance that you'd try debating the issues, rather than these broadside attacks with no detail?

steamengine wrote: »

How come the Dept of Transport and the CyclingUphill forum have got it so wrong ?

Did you read the link you put up? Cycling uphill just took the statts from the Dept, not provided there own. The per billion km is only a useful metric if comparing similar transport in different areas eg comparing motorist safety in the UK vs Ireland, not for vastly different modes of transport. The only reasonable deduction made is the safety in numbers argument doesn't hold well although with increases in overall traffic, it's hard to say as they haven't provided enough data i.e. if cycling rates tripled but death rates only went up by 1% it would be indicative that there is safety in numbers.

Of course - 'Everyone is out of step except my Johnny'. OP has a point, I'm a cyclist and I can see it - look at all the signatures - but hey, keep blaming the motorists - they're a handy scapegoat.

Handy scapegoat for what? What signatures? I am not blaming motorists for anything, I have generally quite pleasant and safe rides in, one bad scare this year but the car didn't hit me, it was just a scare. As I said before, the stories on here don't add up with the stats, and most peoples real world experiences.

I blame people for the stupidity I see.

As a matter of interest, I decided to keep a rough count of stupidity and do a tally in my head this morning. Nothing, over 10km, no motorist, no cyclist done anything wrong, it was odd, they must have known I was watching. A few peds walked into traffic but nothing that put anyone in danger, they were all observant and waving thanks to motorists and cyclists who stopped.

CramCycle wrote: »

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.

Fair play for your honesty.

Would you feel that having done a theory test, lessons or a driving test contributed in your road safety knowledge? You drive safely and that's for obvious reasons but did preparing for driving equip you with road rules, or knowledge on various scenarios that could arise. Did it raise your awareness, for example to look in your left mirror when turning left etc.

I for one believe that having gone through all three of the RSA requirements I am a better motorist and cyclist for this. I would be of the opinion that these methods have influenced how I drive and cycle on main roads, urban roads and within the city, I believe that to say they do not have an effect on driver behavior is just not true.

rubadub

MadDog76 wrote: »

I think discussing motorists should be banned on threads which are specifically about cyclists ......... Mods?

hahahaa, what a pathetically cheap copout!

It's like the hypocrites in threads about illegal recerational drugs who go mental when people remind them that alcohol is a harmful recreational drug. Repeatedly saying "this discussion is about illegal drugs" when people have been discussing legal ones right from the start.

People ARE discussing other road users in this and most cycling threads, with very good reason, dunno if these people moaning are blind to the fact. Idiots in denial saying there is no discussion about motorists, it's an embarrassing tactic.

I said before it'd be like a thread "why do women have affairs, why is this? I really have no clue" and someone saying "eh men do too, nothing unsual" -"shut up you, this is about women".

SeanW wrote: »

But cyclists do the reverse all the time. If you ever see someone on boards (or elsewhere) looking for GPS trackers in cars to catch people going a few km over the speed limit on a grade separated dual carriageway or outside an urban periphery, calling for speed limits to be reduced for no reason than "as a test" or other such insanity, there's a goodly chance the person has "bike" or "cycl" in their username or otherwise self-identifies as a cyclist.

That's what grinds my proverbial gears.

Conspiracy forum =========>

(don't forget your tinfoil hat

)

SeanW

RainyDay wrote: »

The fact remains that it is just a tad hypocritical to lecture cyclists about breaking red lights if you (like me and most drivers) break speed limits on just about every car journey.

But cyclists do the reverse all the time. If you ever see someone on boards (or elsewhere) looking for GPS trackers in cars to catch people going a few km over the speed limit on a grade separated dual carriageway or outside an urban periphery, calling for speed limits to be reduced for no reason than "as a test" or other such insanity, there's a goodly chance the person has "bike" or "cycl" in their username or otherwise self-identifies as a cyclist.

That's what grinds my proverbial gears.

seamus

About 50 cars I saw driving in various bus lanes this morning. Where do drivers get off thinking they can do what they like?

Most days I drive the motorways in this country.

Nearly everyone I see is breaking one or other of our Road traffic laws from hogging the overtaking lane, poor signalling, unsafe or inappropriately marked loads, speeding, failing to make reasonable progress, using mobile phones etc etc.

Do I speed? Yes - but not excessively, and not on urban roads. There's a world of difference between say, exceeding the motorway speed limit on a dry summer's day by 10 km/hr and exceeding the speed limit outside a school on a dark, icy December morning at about 8-45 by 5 km/hr.

Lots of drivers have done theory tests (I got my licence pre the theory test requirement but I have an IAM licence) - it doesn't automatically make them better or more compliant drivers. Plus, there are plenty of situations where ethically a driver would be compelled to break a traffic law and would do so confident in the expectation they'd never be prosecuted.

steamengine

CramCycle wrote: »

............................. 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.

How come the Dept of Transport and the CyclingUphill forum have got it so wrong ?

Of course - 'Everyone is out of step except my Johnny'. OP has a point, I'm a cyclist and I can see it - look at all the signatures - but hey, keep blaming the motorists - they're a handy scapegoat.

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?

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.