I think education & training and an awareness of the vulnerabilities of cyclists has a much to do with improving cyclist safety as an arbitrary gap that can't be policed and won't be enforced. And yes, regular formal bike checks would be good as I said already.And impose a minimum age limit of 18 on cyclists.
And subject all bicycles to an annual NCT
With respect, we haven't got the faintest idea as to whether my proposals will encourage or discourage new cyclists or have any influence on the number of cars on the road. I believe that instilling a sense of ownership in their operating environment and in formal training will improve cyclist safety. Demanding more with zero material contribution and no commitment to improving riding standards or cyclist education rings very hollow and just heightens the sense of entitlement cyclists seem to me to display.The problem with this approach is that you will deter people from cycling. So you will end up with many more cars on the road. So it will be worse for motorists, rather than better.
If you encourage cyclists, it will be good for both cyclists and motorists.
I have to admit I haven't seen motorists use footpaths or pedestrian crossings to complete their journeys, if you have you know what you need to do.
With respect, we haven't got the faintest idea as to whether my proposals will encourage or discourage new cyclists or have any influence on the number of cars on the road. I believe that instilling a sense of ownership in their operating environment and in formal training will improve cyclist safety. Demanding more with zero material contribution and no commitment to improving riding standards or cyclist education rings very hollow and just heightens the sense of entitlement cyclists seem to me to display.
Lots of ideas were deemed unworkable in other countries but they worked here e.g. the plastic bag scourge and smoking indoors in public were deemed intractable problems in the UK and other places until they were solved here. The plastic bag scourge in particular was sorted out by means of a simple and very effective €0.27 tax, akin to my cycle / cycling tax suggestions.This idea has been looked at and ruled out as unworkable in other countries, it's a topic that pops up here every couple of years. Calgary went as far as publishing a response. Any such scheme would cost far more to run than it would take in..
Training, licensing and a safe cycling infrastructure might (just might) encourage Mumsie to put chubby Cedric and rotund Rita on bicycles rather than into the back-seats of the massive SUV she uses to taxi them around. And safer cycling of course is the positive outcome, safety first and foremost. You can't blame Mumsie for using the SUV if she believes the public roads aren't safe for her little cyclists.How would licensing encourage children to take up cycling? What is the positive from their point of view that licensing would give them?
I'm hoping you'll be able to produce stats and references to support your contention that "Many cyclists provide more in the way of funding than other classes of road users." I'm suggesting ring-fencing the cycling money, I already said that. Cyclists need a different environment to other road users to be safe and should pay for it. Pedestrians use footpaths and as such are not "road-users" which I thought was fairly obvious, but maybe not and public transport users pay fares to the bus / rail /tram /taxi owner. As motorists form the vast majority of road-users, it is no surprise that "they are still responsible for the vast majority or road offences, injuries and deaths."You do realise that cyclists already do make a contribution? Many cyclists provide more in the way of funding than other classes of road users. Roads are a public service, the money collected from motor tax is not ring-fenced for the provision or upkeep of roads. If you want all those who benefit from the road infrastructure to contribute in some direct fashio, then you need to figure out how to charge pedestrians, public transport users, private car passengers etc.. Oh wait, general taxation does that already.
You'd imagine car drivers should have some sense of 'ownership in their operating environment', yet they are still responsible for the vast majority or road offences, injuries and deaths.
See my responses to @Leo's post above. I can't see the need to repeat myself.Mathepac, what about kids who cycle to school? We've enough fat kids as it is and we've certainly enough yummy-mummy's driving their one little darling to school in massive 4X4's without adding to the traffic and road danger.
Bikes are not the same as cars or other motorised vehicles. They just aren't.
As a cyclist I find motorists far better now than they were 20 years ago. cyclists are better as well, certainly they are more visible, but many of them still ignore the rules on a constant basis.
If traffic-wardens and the Garda Traffic Corps are not doing their jobs then all I can suggest is that you take it up with their bosses / public representative.Two cars passed me to the left this morning as I was waiting to take a right turn, both at speed, both mounting a footpath to do so, one of them even got all 4 wheels on the path to do so. Garda traffic corps car behind me wasn't too concerned about it, not sure what reporting it will do. It's a daily occurrence at that and two other narrow right hand turns on my daily commute. 90% of the cars on the streets around me also park with 2 or 4 wheels on the paths.
so will Dublin Bus shave 1.5m off their buses then? It will be a very tough law to enforce in Dublin's narrow streets.
4.91 feet? Who's going to measure it? I'm afraid not, not on Dublin's old narrow streets. Besides, it'll never be enforced, just as so many of the current traffic / motoring / cycling laws & bye-laws are not enforced.
Will we do better by having the "mind the gap" police transferred from the London Underground of my yoof to Dublin's streets, brandishing 4.91 foot long poles threateningly at motorists?
IMHO this is off topic - why wouldn't cycling infrastructure be paid for out of general taxation like everything else is? Public transport is subsidised by the taxpayer. Footpaths are paid for by the taxpayer. Roads are paid for by the taxpayer and the EU.I'm suggesting ring-fencing the cycling money, I already said that. Cyclists need a different environment to other road users to be safe and should pay for it. Pedestrians use footpaths and as such are not "road-users" which I thought was fairly obvious, but maybe not and public transport users pay fares to the bus / rail /tram /taxi owner.
In my defence I did post that before you replied to Leo!See my responses to @Leo's post above. I can't see the need to repeat myself.
Lots of ideas were deemed unworkable in other countries but they worked here e.g. the plastic bag scourge and smoking indoors in public were deemed intractable problems in the UK and other places until they were solved here. The plastic bag scourge in particular was sorted out by means of a simple and very effective €0.27 tax, akin to my cycle / cycling tax suggestions.
Training, licensing and a safe cycling infrastructure might (just might) encourage Mumsie to put chubby Cedric and rotund Rita on bicycles rather than into the back-seats of the massive SUV she uses to taxi them around.
I'm hoping you'll be able to produce stats and references to support your contention that "Many cyclists provide more in the way of funding than other classes of road users."
Well, here's one article, there are lots more. The majority of regular cyclists also own cars, so they already contribute to road tax in the same way as non-cycling drivers. The recent explosion in leisure cycling has primarily taken place among the more affluent, who pay more in terms of general taxation. There are also the health benefits, cycling doesn't produce the toxic fumes combustion engines do, so doesn't contribute towards the millions the state pays in treating respiratory illness. Regular cyclists are also tend to be healthier, and less of a drain on the health service, so that should be accounted for also, particularly with the increasing problem of childhood obesity.
I'm suggesting ring-fencing the cycling money, I already said that.
But you're ring fencing a cost. Where stats are available, licensing schemes where they have been trialled only collect 40% or less of the costs to administer the schemes, let alone contribute any funds to improve facilities.
Cyclists need a different environment to other road users to be safe and should pay for it. Pedestrians use footpaths and as such are not "road-users" which I thought was fairly obvious, but maybe not and public transport users pay fares to the bus / rail /tram /taxi owner.
But cyclists shouldn't need a different environment. If they do, it's only down to the dangerous behaviour of either themselves or other road users.
As a pedestrian, I regularly use the roads. Lots of places I walk or run don't have footpaths. Paying a taxi or bus fare is also a long way removed from an enforced licensing system. How about those on horses? Farmers moving animals? Tourists? Should they all be licensed?
As motorists form the vast majority of road-users, it is no surprise that "they are still responsible for the vast majority or road offences, injuries and deaths."
Glad you agree on that, so if this is really a safety issue, and not just a vendetta on rogue cyclists, shouldn't the limited funding, and miniscule policing bandwidth available be focused on where the most significant issue lies? Why spend money and resources we don't have on people who really (barring a few rare exceptions) only injure or kill themselves when they do something stupid?
That's just not an option in many parts of our towns and cities. Personally I will not use cycle paths that are shared with pedestrians as they are just too dangerous.Proper cycle lanes and cycle-only pathways are the only real answer.
Please quote the page and paragraph numbers in The Rules of the Road that specify these distances and time rules. I have a sneaking suspicion it might be your first reading of the ROTR document.There a lots of examples in the rules of the road where safe distances are to be observed by drivers but not enforced by the Gardaí e.g. stopping distances, two second rule, etc....
Because as I've already posted cyclists display a sense of entitlement - "We want a and b and c, let it be so!" No notion of costing or sources of funding for their demands, just "Go do it because if you don't our / your children will die."IMHO this is off topic - why wouldn't cycling infrastructure be paid for out of general taxation like everything else is? Public transport is subsidised by the taxpayer. Footpaths are paid for by the taxpayer. Roads are paid for by the taxpayer and the EU.
Nor am I aware "of a plastic bag levy being tried and failing anywhere else" Leo, and never made any such claim.I'm not aware of a plastic bag levy being tried and failing anywhere else, but I provided links to lots of places where cycling licences were attempted and failed. A levy applied at source is a very different animal to a full licensing system..
I'm not interested in "the take up of cycling", and never claimed I was, my only interest is in the provision of a safe infrastructure for cyclists young and old, funded by cyclists.Training / licensing will never encourage the take up of cycling, as stated in the link provided, it has failed to do so where trialled. Such schemes have also failed to have a positive effect on cycling behaviour. It also does nothing to address the most common factor in cyclist injuries and deaths, the driver.
Please quote the page and paragraph numbers in The Rules of the Road that specify these distances and time rules. I have a sneaking suspicion it might be your first reading of the ROTR document.
Nor am I aware "of a plastic bag levy being tried and failing anywhere else" Leo, and never made any such claim.
The plastic bag scourge in particular was sorted out by means of a simple and very effective €0.27 tax, akin to my cycle / cycling tax suggestions.
Chubby & Rotund, Mumsie's mythical children, won't survive cycling in the current unsafe environment long enough to accrue any health benefits, on the contrary, the little darlings will probably just end up as more unfortunate unsafe cycling statistics, if the toxic fumes from buses and lorries don't kill them first.
I'm ring-fencing revenue from sales, licensing, testing of bikes and cyclists and fines associated with the activity of cycling. I made that perfectly clear. Why the need to distort posts that are in plain English? There may be additional costs associated with revenue collection, but so what? He who would dine on omelettes must break eggs.
Good for you and I hope you do it safely and legally, facing on-coming traffic, on well-lit roads wearing light-coloured reflective clothing with lights and arm-bands. But what the heck has your running and walking exercise got to do with allowing 4.91 feet between a cyclist and an overtaking motor vehicle?
How could anyone interpret my positive suggestions about funding a safe cycling environment be interpreted as a vendetta?
Both the smoking indoors and plastic bag problem were deemed intractable by other jurisdictions until we found creative, lasting solutions to the problems, which they adopted. I believe we can repeat past successes and make cycling safer.So this is nothing like us taking on an idea that has failed the world over, everywhere it has been attempted and turning it around into a resounding success.
Once again Leo, you'll see by dint of reading my post that I wrote the complete polar opposite to the statement you attribute to me. I'll keep pointing this out to you for as long as you persist.The bag levy, as you say is a tax at source
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?