Dr Crippen wrote: » No but it could save some lives, is that worth anything?
Dr Crippen wrote: » Unfortunately I am not pretending, when you have dependents in the car with you, I become more attentive and aware and adhere to the rules of the road.
Dr Crippen wrote: » But you, complain about drivers breaking lights, record it even! and then have the nerve to admit to driving over the speed limit and try to justify it?
Jawgap wrote: » What evidence is there that it will save lives? If anything it will cost lives, because it will dissuade people from cycling by introducing a barrier - cycling is a useful activity easily incorporated into lifestyles. It helps promote a degree of fitness, is largely unpolluting and is quite low in terms of environmental impact. If someone is put off cycling because of a test - or other 'barrier' - or because something communicates an idea that cycling is less safe than it actually is, and that person drives more than they otherwise would - is that a positive move? And even if the idea of test was a good idea was a good one, in principle - how would you enforce it? Would an hour of Garda time be better spent checking cyclists to see if they have their test done or carrying out speed checks?
Dr Crippen wrote: » What evidence is there that it will save lives? If anything it will cost lives, because it will dissuade people from cycling by introducing a barrier - cycling is a useful activity easily incorporated into lifestyles. It helps promote a degree of fitness, is largely unpolluting and is quite low in terms of environmental impact. So again, by your statement can you answer me the following: 1. If you believe a theory test will not save lives and it will cost lives, why is there a driver theory test and do you feel this is useless. 2. Have you any evidence that a bicycle theory test will cost lives and could you explain to me how this would occur?
RainyDay wrote: » So would wrapping everyone in bubble wrap - an equally ludicrous proposal. If you want a proposal to be taken seriously, come up with a decent cost/benefit analysis. Strangely enough, you're not the only person in Ireland to have dependents in the car with you. Most people are familiar with that scenario. But keep up the pretense if you like. You might be managing to kid yourself, but you're not kidding me. You seem to be labouring under a misapprehension that I need to justify anything to you. I don't. All that an more. There is also the opportunity cost arising from the missed opportunity to focus policy makers and legislators on dealing with the death toll on the road caused by motorists.
pmasterson95 wrote: » By god it must be awful depressing complaining that much
Knasher wrote: » I don't think I've ever seen a motorist vs cyclist thread created in AH by a cyclist, but I've seen three created from the motorists perspective in the last month.
pmasterson95 wrote: » Well thats due to the cyclists ignorance and feeling that all rules and events seem to conspire against them and their method of transport.
pmasterson95 wrote: » Just ended up clicking into cyclist thread by accident. They are bitching about a french rule banning earphones? By god do cyclists ever not whine? They are either whining about motorists, whining about the rules of the road (why do we have to if motorists dont?) or whining about pedestrians. By god it must be awful depressing complaining that much
Dr Crippen wrote: » You are behaving a little childish now I cant see bubble wrap helping anyone, in fact it would probably get caught up in the bicycle spokes, so an opposite effect.
Dr Crippen wrote: » What I see everyday is bad motorists and bad cyclists. The point made before was that motorist must complete a series of test, cyclists do not and I would like to see something introduced to reduce the possibility of cyclists having accidents or becoming embroiled in incidents with motorists, that's all and some sort of awareness campaign or theory course IN MY OPINION, might help.
Dr Crippen wrote: » You on the other hand have recommended nothing on the basis of motorist cause more accidents, how does that help?
Dr Crippen wrote: » You have mentioned twice I am pretending, children pretend when they are playing together or when imagining fun games, I don't, I understand you could be becoming a little frustrated but its not the way to get your point across, Again I will state I drive within the legal limits on the road as I don't want penalty points, a fine or to kill the people in the car with me.
Dr Crippen wrote: » Lastly I don't want you to justify anything, I never even mentioned it but I don't have the patience to debate with hypocrites, which I am afraid you might be?
jimgoose wrote: » The theory test forces people to at least have some familiarity with the RotR. The driving test examines basic competency in operating the machine, as well as observation, hazard perception/reaction, etc. It's not that complicated, and not that comprehensive. That's the way with these things, that virtually everybody has to do. If anyone feels like doing an advanced test, which lasts over an hour and is marked using a chainsaw, be my guest - motorist, pedalling-bicyclist or pedestrian - but know that if I had my way it would be preceded by something like the Navy SEAL Hell Week, during which sense would be fcukan BATE into prospects!
StinkyMunkey wrote: » To keep everyone happy, why not once a year take a concept like the one in the film "The Purge" and apply it to cyclists. Think of it as an annual cull on cyclists, it will keep their numbers down. The only issue is the repairs on your car after could be quiet exspensive.
RainyDay wrote: » Yes, the bubble wrap is a remarkably silly idea - but not that far off your idea of a theory test that has already been proven to be ineffective. So you have bad motorists, who have completed their test and license. And your proposal to 'fix' cyclists is to introduce another test/license system, though the first one is not achieving the objective you want to achieve. Really, this will about as much use as a chocolate teapot.Whats your recommendation then? That's untrue. I haven't recommended 'nothing'. I have recommended that a theory test for cyclists would be completely ineffective, expensive and a dangerous distraction from the death toll on the roads. Thats not recommending any idea, its purely negating the debate? Your advice on 'how to get my point across' is not needed thanks. Please don't patronise me. I don't need advice on 'how to get my point across' from someone whose main debating technique is 'repeat my opinion, again and again'.Not at all, read through the posts with Jawgap we are developing ideas such as introducing something into the school curriculum, you have produce nothing positive or suggested anything. You have only delved into childish posts bordering on name calling. I guess it might have come from where you said "then have the nerve to admit to driving over the speed limit and try to justify it" that I felt you were expecting me to justify something.No I wasn't you misinterpreted that, I was purely pointing out your hypocrisy As for your patience, you seem to have endless patience for repeating your 'opinion' without giving any justification or rationale or fact or evidence.Unfortunately you have undermined yourself and your points by being a hypocrite. One the one hand you don't see the value in trying to introduce a system to educate, help and advise cyclists or future cyclists.You say its ineffective and costly. You consistently bring up the figure of 200 plus motorists etc etc and yet you by your own admission break the speed limit, have a think about that.
Dr Crippen wrote: » Whats your recommendation then?
Dr Crippen wrote: » Not at all, read through the posts with Jawgap we are developing ideas such as introducing something into the school curriculum, you have produce nothing positive or suggested anything. You have only delved into childish posts bordering on name calling.
Dr Crippen wrote: » Unfortunately you have undermined yourself and your points by being a hypocrite. One the one hand you don't see the value in trying to introduce a system to educate, help and advise cyclists or future cyclists.You say its ineffective and costly. You consistently bring up the figure of 200 plus motorists etc etc and yet you by your own admission break the speed limit, have a think about that.
RainyDay wrote: » My recommendation has been fairly clear from the start of this thread, but if you really need it, I'll repeat it. 1) Prioritise our attention on road safety issues based on risk - 200 people are killed each year by motorists, so our priority should be on reducing that dramatically.Again this should include cyclists, as they are road users also. Give some examples what you would prioritise because you don't really address or outline anything in that point 2) In terms of cyclists breaking lights or other minor transgressions, we should do nothing until we have a clear understanding of what problem we are trying to solve and what benefit will arise.Wow, other minor transgressions? like not indicating when turning, changing lanes without signalling, breaking red lights the kind of thing motorists do? Lets discuss the problems we are trying to solve, instead of mud slinging, accusing people of being dramatic or how did you put it 'ludicrous'It will mean that cyclists as road users are complying with the rules of the road and to try and ensure a greater level of safety for them, surely that's the goal? Or are you happy with them continuing to do this? Developing ideas? Don't kid yourself. Cycle safety programmes have been run in schools for years now, and got extra funding last year. You're not developing anything - you're waffling about stuff you know little about.Ha really, I mentioned including something in the curriculum as part of a short course or Module this would be relevant to schools. I am a teacher and never have I ever seen this done in school and the school has to incorporate this themselves and apply for funding, its not part of the curriculum or even promoted by the department of education. It's a pity that you still fail to understand dangerous driving and what causes deaths on the road. I'm not going to try and educate you any more, as you seem to be fairly impervious to facts.
RainyDay wrote: » That's untrue. I haven't recommended 'nothing'. I have recommended that a theory test for cyclists would be completely ineffective, expensive and a dangerous distraction from the death toll on the roads.
Dr Crippen wrote: » Thats not recommending any idea, its purely negating the debate?
Burning Bridges wrote: » Mad Frenchies In an effort to make cycling safer:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097882/Paris-allow-cyclists-run-red-lights-bid-cut-accidents.html
Grandpa Hassan wrote: » I actually think that it is inevitable everywhere as the relentless increase in cyclists holds drivers up at junctions for longer and longer..Motorists moan, but dont realise that their journey would be quicker if cyclists were permitted to go on a red.
RainyDay wrote: » 200 people are killed each year by motorists, so our priority should be on reducing that dramatically.
dubscottie wrote: » You don't know the exact circumstances of each of each persons death so don't keep banging out the old "cars kill 200 every year" drivel when trying to make a point.
papu wrote: » Yeah but we know that they weren't killed by someone on a bike.
Dr Crippen wrote: » No thanks, I know what dangerous driving is there are many factors such as road condition, driver performance and not driving within the speed limit and you going over the speed limit are part of that culture. So you by speeding, and then criticizing other road users are a hypocrite. Moving the goalpost, by saying "what if you go 1 mile an hour over the limit" or watching other cars pass you by, does not in any way make that right. Therefore, you are a hypocrite and I recommend not educating anyone in the skill of hypocrisy, its as simple as that. If you are concerned about deaths on the road, stay within the limit and for gods sake practice what you preach!I bet you never break red lights.... I bet you never break the speed limit in your car... (again your retort)All through this I have stated I am a cyclist and a motorist. I have been unbiased in my assessment of both sets of road users, stating in a previous post that daily I see good and bad road users. I don't like saying this but you seem to be coming from a totally pro cyclist point of view. Using language like: 'In terms of cyclists breaking lights or other minor transgressions, we should do nothing until we have a clear understanding of what problemwe are trying to solve and what benefit will arise' I am still laughing at this comment to be fair, it beggars belief, am I wrong in saying you posted a video of motorists breaking lights, why not balance that up with cyclists doing the same, just for an unbiased perspectiveBwaahaahaa - don't make me post the videos again, the ones showing drivers ignoring red lights, (your post)
Dr Crippen wrote: » @ Rainyday Ah thanks Your still a hypocrite though!
pmasterson95 wrote: » This motorists kill more so cyclists are sound is so hilariously bizzare. More people get stabbed than shot. We should ignore guns and regulate knives.
