My ex thinks cycling tests and insurance should be compulsary for cyclists

[Night Train]

I agree but allowances should be made for people with things like dyspraxia. Some people just can't ride a bike. A friend uses a trike as she's dyspraxic and has poor sense of balance.

Yeah, that's why I was thinking of 'physically being able to ride' a bike.

Perhaps even better would be to have to pass a cycling test and then cycle for a year before being allowed to get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle for lessons. Some sort of log would have to be made to ensure that the prospective driver didn't just sit on the ass for a year though.

It would probably encourage more prospective drivers to keep up with the cycling anyway.

 

[wafflycat]

I think she thinks that the costs for her to insure her car may be higher because cyclists aren't made to take tests.

Then she is this: wrong.

She reports that she's seen some cyclists do some dangerous things a couple of times and this almost caused her to have the accident several times. I think maybe she's just annoyed at having to make allowances for bad cyclists and some of them not understanding the rules of the road.

Perhaps it's the other way round - as a motorist with what seems to be little understanding of non-motorised road users, she is the one doing something wrong? Just a thought.

Another thought - some pedestrians do silly things every day where motorists have to take avoiding action - does she think that having to make allowances for pedestrians not understanding the rules of the road and not having to take tests or have compulsory insurnace before venturing outside of their front doors mean her insurnace premiums for driving are increased?

What is her understanding of the 'rules of the road'? Car = king?

Out of interest, what are the figures on cycling collisions with cars Particularly those where the cyclist was found to be at fault?

Do a google - they're out there somewhere and IIRC, dependent upon source it's something like 66-85% where the cyclist isn't at fault. It really is usually the fault of the motorist (and yes, I am a motorist - as well as pedestrian & cyclist)

 

[wafflycat]

I think she thinks that the costs for her to insure her car may be higher because cyclists aren't made to take tests.

Then she is this: wrong.

She reports that she's seen some cyclists do some dangerous things a couple of times and this almost caused her to have the accident several times. I think maybe she's just annoyed at having to make allowances for bad cyclists and some of them not understanding the rules of the road.

Perhaps it's the other way round - as a motorist with what seems to be little understanding of non-motorised road users, she is the one doing something wrong? Just a thought.

Another thought - some pedestrians do silly things every day where motorists have to take avoiding action - does she think that having to make allowances for pedestrians not understanding the rules of the road and not having to take tests or have compulsory insurnace before venturing outside of their front doors mean her insurnace premiums for driving are increased?

What is her understanding of the 'rules of the road'? Car = king?

Out of interest, what are the figures on cycling collisions with cars Particularly those where the cyclist was found to be at fault?

Do a google - they're out there somewhere and IIRC, dependent upon source it's something like 66-85% where the cyclist isn't at fault. It really is usually the fault of the motorist (and yes, I am a motorist - as well as pedestrian & cyclist)

 

[wafflycat]

Yeah, that's why I was thinking of 'physically being able to ride' a bike.

Perhaps even better would be to have to pass a cycling test and then cycle for a year before being allowed to get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle for lessons. Some sort of log would have to be made to ensure that the prospective driver didn't just sit on the ass for a year though.

It would probably encourage more prospective drivers to keep up with the cycling anyway.

Why should a person hjave to take a test to do something which they already have a RIGHT to do? Remeber, we have a right to use our pedal cycles, whereas we don't have a right to drive - we have a LICENCE to drive and there is a legal difference between a right to do something and having a licence to do something.

 

[wafflycat]

Yeah, that's why I was thinking of 'physically being able to ride' a bike.

Perhaps even better would be to have to pass a cycling test and then cycle for a year before being allowed to get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle for lessons. Some sort of log would have to be made to ensure that the prospective driver didn't just sit on the ass for a year though.

It would probably encourage more prospective drivers to keep up with the cycling anyway.

Why should a person hjave to take a test to do something which they already have a RIGHT to do? Remeber, we have a right to use our pedal cycles, whereas we don't have a right to drive - we have a LICENCE to drive and there is a legal difference between a right to do something and having a licence to do something.

 

[darkstar]

So when the issue regarding car drivers being forced to complete a cycling test came up on these boards, the majority agreed. Now someone is suggesting cyclists must complete a test the general consensus is against the idea, outing the person as a "driver".... Please

 

[darkstar]

So when the issue regarding car drivers being forced to complete a cycling test came up on these boards, the majority agreed. Now someone is suggesting cyclists must complete a test the general consensus is against the idea, outing the person as a "driver".... Please

 

[marinyork]

So when the issue regarding car drivers being forced to complete a cycling test came up on these boards, the majority agreed. Now someone is suggesting cyclists must complete a test the general consensus is against the idea, outing the person as a "driver".... Please

Well different bits of the boards have different flavours. You're not necessarily going to get the same people replying to every thread...

 

[marinyork]

So when the issue regarding car drivers being forced to complete a cycling test came up on these boards, the majority agreed. Now someone is suggesting cyclists must complete a test the general consensus is against the idea, outing the person as a "driver".... Please

Well different bits of the boards have different flavours. You're not necessarily going to get the same people replying to every thread...

 

[Baggy]

So when the issue regarding car drivers being forced to complete a cycling test came up on these boards, the majority agreed. Now someone is suggesting cyclists must complete a test the general consensus is against the idea, outing the person as a "driver".... Please

And it's about two different things - being asked to ride a bike so you learn the rules of the road/spatial awareness before learning to drive is different from being tested to demonstrate you're able to ride a bike.

 

[darkstar]

Well different bits of the boards have different flavours. You're not necessarily going to get the same people replying to every thread...

it was a poll on cafe, I was damned and told "I thought we were cyclists".

 

[darkstar]

And it's about two different things - being asked to ride a bike so you learn the rules of the road/spatial awareness before learning to drive is different from being tested to demonstrate you're able to ride a bike.

it really isn't that different. If I'm honest I can see positives and negatives for both ideas.

 

[GrasB]

In all honesty when driving & cycling I have to make far more allowances for badly behaved drivers/riders than badly behaved cyclists. Also I think all the cyclists who genuinely have caused me a problem I've always earmarked as being a high risk cyclist long before I've had any issue with their riding. As for cyclists not having to take to take responsibility for their actions, I'd hazard a guess that most riders are all to aware that if they do something stupid & get hit they're more than likely to be the one who ends up with life altering injuries. The car driver might have bent a few £1000s worth of metal... hardly comparable & imo shows how the £ means more than the person in this day & age.

Making a cycling proficiency test part of the requirement for a provisional driving/riding licence certainly has merit but I don't think in reality it'll change much as if the learner doesn't cycle regularly the'll quickly forget what they've been taught.

EDIT: I should add that that I'm a hard core petrol head & driving enthusiast, with that I'd still happily write off a supercar if it meant I didn't hit a ped/cyclist/horse (rider)

 

[Lisa21]

She's your ex. Dont take too much notice

 

[Arch]

it really isn't that different. If I'm honest I can see positives and negatives for both ideas.

That's funny, you couldn't see any positives to my suggestion of cycle training prior to learning to drive when you described as the worst idea you'd ever heard. Although the majority of people thought it was a good idea...

I'd like it very much if more/all cyclists had some training, or at least some awareness that the rules of the road apply to them. But the difference is that a cyclist arsing about is more likely to kill themselves (yes, a very very few people are killed by irresponsible cyclists, and those cyclists shouldn't get away with it without severe punishment any more than a driver should), and a driver arsing about is more likely to kill someone else. Which is why licences and training (and better training than we have now) should be/are compulsory for drivers, and not for cyclists. It comes down to the difference between a dent in someone's door, and a death.

And for the record I have 3rd party insurance through my CTC membership, and I don't have a car of my own but drive sometimes for work.