Some cyclists are crazy...

Gerry Canning said:
Apparently his Sat -Nav put him off course!
What dimwit takes a bike onto a carriageway.
That man needs help.
Click to expand...

I can only guess that

a) he doesn't drive, so he doesn't get the difference between motorways and normal roads
b) he's a foreigner or a visitor or a recent immigrant, who doesn't get what the M25 means
 
Purple said:
My kids cycled around the place since they were 6. What sort of a test should they have taken?
Click to expand...

It could easily be arranged, lessons then testing - through either the schools or an independent bike course and testing centre outside of the school system.


Thats a poor attitude. The more people who take a negative attidude, the worse the problems get ....

I disagree with you when you say that the testing/licencing system does nothing to stop bad and dangerous driving - how do you know, what evidence can you provide to suport your statements ?

No more than with banking, firearms etc - regulation is required to try and keep people in check, protect both the individuals and others who can be effected by their actions.

People on bikes have obligations to keep others safe - that means they should not be cycling the wrong way down a one way street, on the footpaths, breaking the traffic lights or disregarding other rules of the road. Sure, they have the right to use the road system and are entitled to equality - but thats where it stops, just as for drivers of cars etc.
 
MrEarl said:
It could easily be arranged, lessons then testing - through either the schools or an independent bike course and testing centre outside of the school system.
Click to expand...
Just for your information, many schools and local authorities already do lessons. There is a 5-week course starting in our school next week, costing €12 per pupil, with most of the cost covered by Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Co Co.

MrEarl said:
Thats a poor attitude. The more people who take a negative attidude, the worse the problems get ....
Click to expand...
You seem to be a bit confused. Any public policy measure needs to be evidence based. The cost of implementing your proposed measure is substantial. It will require policy development, international research, legislation, administrative infrastructure, enforcement resources. All of these require either additional public expenditure, or reassignment of existing resources to this initiative. There is a substantial cost involved in implementing a proposal like yours, so if we were to go down this road, we need to be sure it works. We really shouldn’t be changing public policy on a whim of an average observer, who (I presume) has no professional experience in the matter.
You have given no clear statement of what problem you are trying to fix here. I don’t hear any outcry from the professionals in this area (Gardai, road safety authority, traffic engineers) that suggests there is a significant safety issue caused by cyclists. Deaths of cyclists on the road fell to an all-time low last year, and while 5 deaths is still 5 too many, I see no connection between your proposal and any positive road safety outcome. One very likely outcome of your proposal is that less people will cycle – have you seriously considered the impact of this?
A healthy questioning of costly, unresearched proposals with no evidence base is not ‘a negative attitude’. It is actually a very positive attitude.
If you want your proposal to be taken seriously, I’d suggest you clarify:
- Specifically what problem your proposal will fix
- What would be the likely costs of your proposal
- What would be the actual outcome of your proposal, noting that public policy outcomes are often not obvious.
- Where the proposal fits in priority terms of the overall programme of activity in this sector – should it take resources from the ‘slow down’ programmes, or the ‘don’t drink and drive’ programmes or other programmes?
MrEarl said:
I disagree with you when you say that the testing/licencing system does nothing to stop bad and dangerous driving - how do you know, what evidence can you provide to suport your statements ?
Click to expand...
The evidence I provide is my experience driving and cycling around Dublin every day. Every day, I see a substantial number of drivers using the phone while driving, including drivers of particularly lethal large trucks. Every day, I see drivers breaking the speed limit – in fact, most drivers break the speed limit. At almost every traffic light, I see 1 or 2 or 3 drivers breaking the lights by driving through the junction after the lights have gone red. Every day, I see cars driving with missing brake lights or missing back lights. All of these actions are illegal, and the current regime of testing, licensing and enforcement does nothing to stop them happening. That’s why I’m just a tad cynical that implementing a similar expensive regime for cyclists will have any impact.
Absolutely, it’s nice that we can agree on something.
If we want to change behaviours of bad cyclists, then we have a current, existing enforcement system. We don’t need to change legislation or implement extra bureaucracy. We just need Gardai to start stopping cyclists, warning them, fining them, prosecuting them. This does happen to some extent at the moment, and I know people who have been stopped and fined by Gardai while cycling, and maybe we need a bit more of it.
What we don’t need is a massive expensive bureaucratic distraction to fix some undefined problem. So really, what outcome are you trying to achieve?
 
Some remarkably sensible thoughts on cycling from an unexpected source;

[broken link removed]
 
Rainy day , Given the wet weather this past year, since you are a committed (no pun) cyclist you have been very brave !

Particularly taken with the Lance Armstrong bit on Top-Gear.

It was interesting in Top gear that buses were the ones thought of as the most dangerous to cyclists. Means that here in the sticks we are safe ie next bus is to-morrow.

Everyone , take care 1st , we can argue later.
 
MrEarl said:
It could easily be arranged
Click to expand...

Easy, but very expensive. What do we gain for spending millions each year?

MrEarl said:
Thats a poor attitude. The more people who take a negative attidude, the worse the problems get ....
Click to expand...

I think it's more an observation. The levels of compliance of all categories of road users is very poor here, and all we seem to ever do is pick some of the other categories to blame.

Licences for cyclists aren't going to make a difference to levels of compliance with the existing rules, only enforcement will do that. As drivers, we must have licences, but yet almost every set of lights I come to at least one car goes through on red. So if it's not working for drivers who can currently lose their licence, why is it going to work for cyclists?

LA introduced bicycle licensing in response to similar concerns, but ended up scrapping it as they couldn't afford to run the scheme, enforcement of rules was still close to non-existent, and no noticeable benefits were achieved.

Alberta considered it, but pulled back when they could find no evidence that cyclists as a group violate traffic laws more often than other road users.
 
Top Leer while fun, has almost no relevance to the real world.

Considering they don't enforce the current rules and regulations as much as they should. It makes no sense to create more rules and regulations that will also not be enforced.

You see people breaking the rules all day long in a city. Any busy junction and its non stop. Hardly ever see any Cop standing there enforcing anything.
 
RainyDay said:
Some remarkably sensible thoughts on cycling from an unexpected source;

[broken link removed]
Click to expand...
I agree.
People need to stop talking as if bikes were cars. They are not. The potential to cause injury to other road users by cyclists is infinitesimal when compared to motorists. They are slower and lighter and if you lose control you fall off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register