Jawgap wrote: » Awareness of the RotR is not the same as being perceptive when it comes to hazard identifiecation - a theory test may well encourage, even require, people to become aware of certain elements of the RotR (namely those bits covered in the test) but it will not, imo, make them measurably better drivers. True, but it goes a way, what would you recommend as an alternative? Consequently, there is nothing to suggest that a theory test for cyclists would make them any better cyclists. The introduction of such a test may make a few drivers feel a bit better but it won't do much beyond that.
RainyDay wrote: » Genius solution - 200 people getting killed by motorists each year, and you want to put bells on racing bikes. I find it laughable that some people pretend that they never break a speed limit. I don't point out 'driver error' very often, as in pedantic errors. I point out dangerous driving. If you can't see the difference, you're not a very good driver.
rubadub wrote: » 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".
Dr Crippen wrote: » 1. Did your son in the process of studying for this exam become aware of the rules of the road? 2. On your second point I would not entirely agree with that, you are tested on signaling, motion and various other driving skills and abilities. 3. Prior to the N plate he wouldn't have to wait two years!!! 4. I am a teacher and with short courses becoming available to schools its a big possibility. It could also tie in with subjects such as CSPE, SPHE, it could be a transition year module etc, so there is room for it.
steamengine wrote: » It's not biased to compare modes safety wise and the distance stat is well recognised - Air travel is constantly being quoted as being the safest, motorcycling the least safe along with private flying as in light aircraft. 30mph is not an uncommon speed for very fit cyclists and on boards, they often recall with relish their long spins, 100km or so no problem. What's the difference between that and a Vespa scooter ? Very little I would say, except the Vespa rider wears a helmet, uses mirrors and a horn. I understand some of these racing bicycles don't even require or have a bell ! Tut Tut safety - plenty of room for improvement methinks.
Dr Crippen wrote: » I find it laughable that some people say its motorists who cause the majority of accidents, which based on the figures is true, yet in the same breath openly admit to not adhering to the speed limits on our roads by their own admission and in turn try to make the point that by me complying to the law, I am blinkered and again they are cyclists and point out driver error very often? Strange times.
Jawgap wrote: » That theory tests are not much more than useless - especially in the current form where they are multiple-choice that can be just dealt with by rote learning. Passing one doesn't mean you are a better driver - it just means you could memorise more stuff. Like the driving test itself - you are not testing someone's ability as a driver you are testing to see if they have the spatial awareness and motor skills necessary to operate a piece of machinery. We still have the ludicrous position that my teenage son can pass his test, wear his N plate, not drive anything for two years then hop in into a tail-happy Porsche 930 and go for a spin (literally, I'd say, in his case). As for theory tests in school? The curriculum is already crowded enough. I'm all for more education of kids in how to use the roads safely and responsibly either as pedestrians or cyclists are part of their optional progression to becoming drivers, but the notion they should be tested is way OTT.
Dr Crippen wrote: » Right, not really getting your point there?
Jawgap wrote: » So theory tests have been useful in encouraging motorists and drivers to adhere to speed limits?Where did I say that? Did the test make them aware of speed limits? the 'they' you are referring do are often both cyclists and drivers, and, I'll wager' occasionally pedestrians too
CramCycle wrote: » ??? Its not whiter than white, in fact if you read my posts, you would find I pointed out there are probably as many dangerous and idiotic cyclists % wise as there are idiotic and dangerous motorists, forgetting the fact that the cyclist will probably only fatally injure themselves if reckless enough, whereas a motorist has the possibility of far greater damage. I don't have the stats, they may change nothing, it could look the exact same, it could look better or worse for cyclists, my point was the metric given is flawed and misleading to those who may not be used to seeing misleading data to highlight something that isn't really there.I suspect the metrics I gave would lead to motorists and cyclists being equivalent in terms of risk but I would need the average distance travelled, the typical number of motorists on the roads, the typical number of cyclists and then the number of fatal accidents in the area proscribed. The CSO would give indicative numbers for the first 3 and the AGS would have the last. Without reasonable comparisons and reasonable metrics, it is a biased and unfair description to say any mode of transport is more dangerous than another without more intelligent data. You could compare motorcyclists and car drivers, maybe, but I don't know if there is a bias of a large or small number of motorcylists to use other transport alternatives for long journeys.
Knasher wrote: » Why a theory test instead of something in secondary schools? I've outlined why I think doing it in secondary schools would be better, but clearly you lean towards the theory test. Which would have the obvious effect of dis-encouraging cycling in general. Given that, I'm sure there is a good reason why you favor it, I just can't see why.
Dr Crippen wrote: » Yes Knasher I agree and the hope is it could reduce deaths and accidents, as mentioned most cyclists are motorists but the reverse is not always true so some form of education on it would be great giving people a greater insight to the dangers. Through this method some theory testing could be introduced. I find it laughable that some people say its motorists who cause the majority of accidents, which based on the figures is true, yet in the same breath openly admit to not adhering to the speed limits on our roads by their own admission and in turn try to make the point that by me complying to the law, I am blinkered and again they are cyclists and point out driver error very often? Strange times.
Dr Crippen wrote: » Yes Knasher I agree and the hope is it could reduce deaths and accidents, as mentioned most cyclists are motorists but the reverse is not always true so some form of education on it would be great giving people a greater insight to the dangers. Through this method some theory testing could be introduced.
steamengine wrote: » Put up your alternative statistics then and let's take a look at them. Somehow I get the impression the Dept of Transport stats just don't suit the whiter than white image of cycling which you're trying to portray, but I could be wrong.
Dr Crippen wrote: » Going over that national roads authority 'recommended' speed limit in my honest opinion is a danger, you think not and that's your opinion.
Knasher wrote: » Introducing it into the school curriculum would be a great idea, because even if somebody doesn't end up a cyclist, understanding what dangers other road users face and being able to predict how they should react to those dangers is beneficial, regardless of your vehicle.
Dr Crippen wrote: » 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: » That statement is somewhat incorrect. We know from the stats and as previously posted that there were no cars involved in the case of two cyclists' fatalities. We don't know who's actually at fault for the rest of the cycling fatalities. If you keep saying therefore that motorists kill 200 people each year, when clearly they don't in some cases, then please excuse me from engaging in such a fruitless debating exercise.
Dr Crippen wrote: » Again I come back to the point, you breaking the speed limit while driving are contributing to the likelihood of someone being hurt, including yourself
CramCycle wrote: » 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). Well thats not a great start Using your "evidence" I have found driving to be more dangerous, thats why we don't use anecdoetal evidence for policy, it is flawed. 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. 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. 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.
jimgoose wrote: » Mmm. That's as may be, but it saddens me greatly whenever I hear of some poor sod mangled by a bus or an artic.
Tony EH wrote: » It's sad to see anyone in a road accident. But theory tests won't bring down the already tiny accident levels involving cyclists. In fact, so rare are accidents involving cyclists (and pedestrians for that matter) it results in me being really shocked when I do see one. But accidents involving cars are relatively common place and they are usually car on car.
Tony EH wrote: » But I don't think "a lot" are getting hurt Goose. Accidents involving cyclists are in the extreme minority, especially relative to car accidents. I've been cycling the streets of Dublin for far too many years and the number of accidents I've seen involving cyclists are tiny. The only real issue is that some cyclists piss some car drivers off. But actual accidents are quite few and far between.
RainyDay wrote: » ..........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.
RainyDay wrote: » Does this mean that you now accept my point (which is basically the same as his point)?The poster being a driving instructor pointed out my error, you did not and yet I don't think its great practice to mention these things during lessons, again my personal opinion which thankfully I am entitled to. 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?There's no drama here thankfully, that's a broadside attack, no?, Drama really is not in my nature. Anything over the dictated speed limit is firstly breaking the law and can warrant a fine and penalty points, am I wrong on that? Going over that national roads authority 'recommended' speed limit in my honest opinion is a danger, you think not and that's your opinion. 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.That doesn't make sense if they are going over the speed limit, right? I think it was fairly clear from the quoting that my 'broadside' response was directed at the steamengine, not you.Great, I am glad we cleared that up 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.
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.
