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

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Night Train

Maker of Things
wafflycat said:
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.
Whoa! Hold on there.

I'm not saying do a test for something you have a right to do anyway.

I am suggesting do a test before being allowed to access something more risky. A proof of competance, say, a bit like the CBT before taking motor bike training.

If you want to ride a bike then you're free to ride one but if you want to pilot a ton of metal at speed down a road then prove that you know the laws of the road, road traffic act and highway code, and have a degree of competence on a bike before getting in a car.

Much the same as having a car licence before being allowed to apply for a Cat C and then having the Cat C before being allowed to apply for the Cat C+E.
Or having to get a restricted motor bike licence before getting a full motorbike licence.
 
http://road.cc/content/news/12065-cyclists-not-blame-road-casualties-says-study-commissioned-dft

Article puts it at 93% cyclists not to blame in road accidents. Therefore, I would suggest that she re-evaluates her driving skills if she has nearly had several accidents....perhaps a motorcycle or cycling course to get her up to snuff?
 

John the Monkey

Frivolous Cyclist
Location
Crewe
Riverman said:
My opinion is that this would be ideal but is impractical and will put people off cycling. The consequence of this will be a more unhealthy nation, and therefore greater costs in the long run.
No, she's right.

She's obviously looked at the figures and seen the huge death toll inflicted upon users of motorised transport by cyclists, and decided that something MUST BE DONE.

No, hang on...
 

Night Train

Maker of Things
GrasB said:
IMaking 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.
This is why I thought, suggested, perhaps a period, a year, cycling before progressing to to a driving licence might be beneficial. The 'test' would be a part of the programme of progression that the applicant for a driving licence would need to go through.

I cycled for years before I took my driving test. I still cycle a bit, no where near as much as most here, but I still have the awareness of all other road users, without prejudice, that I learnt from cycling.
 

darkstar

New Member
Arch said:
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... work.
try Reading the thread, think you'll find I suggested more cycling training at a younger age, and though there were some alternatives. The actual idea was crazy though and what a suprise the majority on here agreed with you... Pfft
 

jig-sore

Formerly the anorak
Location
Rugby
round20and20round.jpg
 

Coco

Well-Known Member
Location
Glasgow
John the Monkey said:
She's obviously looked at the figures and seen the huge death toll inflicted upon users of motorised transport by cyclists

If she keeps this up she's likely to be one of these stats :biggrin:
 
Personally I think she has a point.

After all a test and insurance would stop cyclists jumping lights, speeding, ovartaking at junctions or narrow points, abusing the pavements.......etc.

In just the same way it has with motorists
 

yenrod

Guest
Riverman said:
My opinion is that this would be ideal but is impractical and will put people off cycling. The consequence of this will be a more unhealthy nation, and therefore greater costs in the long run.

I have been told my opinion is very wrong.

discuss....

PS: She's a motorist

I disagree - tests & insurance for cyclists: WHY - because Ive it upto the proverbial about the reason you give AND the motorists...i'm a good cyclist - I know how to behave and the majority of drivers DO NOT...so this could and prob. would come back on them...TO BE MORE responsible if cyclists have a fair whack of the whip :biggrin:

How many motorists could actually be responsible ????????

I ask you......seriously ;)
 

shouldbeinbed

Rollin' along
Location
Manchester way
wafflycat said:
I think everyone who wants to hold a full driving licence should have, as part of the testing procedure, have to have a pedal cycle as their main form of transport for at least 12 months before being allowed anywhere near the controls of a motor vehicle.

Edit to add: WCMnr is learning to drive. It has been noted by his driving instructor that his risk-identification and hazard avoidance skills are very, very good - right from the very first lesson he had. Seems all those years of being a cyclist (leisure/commuting/competing) where he cycled on all roads from minor country lanes to 70mph dual carriageways has been of benefit.

No. If you want better drivers improve driving training. How many learners have WCMnr cycling dedication or experience? not many I'd suggest.


Motorbikes would be better too to match the speed of a car - jump from a bicycle to a car is an very big step and not realistic in terms of vehicle size or speed, both of which are big considerations in on the road spatial awareness - riding a bike for a year will not make you a year better as a motorist anymore than painting an apple orange will make it taste like an orange.

I can't remember my driving lessons and I've no doubt that 99.9% of people who have resentfully been forced to ride a bike simply to get a car licence will never set foot on pedal in anger again and will have forgotten everything they've learned on a bike by the time they've got to the point of being ready to take their driving test.
Also if I were that keen on driving I'd just drive illegally and take my chances - how many no tax disc, no insurance, no licence drivers are there already when you can go straight to a car?
That illegal number would go through the roof if people had another obstacle put in their way. With this idea e'd have far more unqualified drivers with absolutely no formal training whatsoever bombing about the roads. Things would be far more dangerous for everyone.

Maybe we should all have to ride a horse and walk to work for a year too. How about working as black cabbies or white van delivery drivers so we can understand the different way in which they have to use the road and the different awarenesses they need for their professional duties from us bog standard A to B drivers not on the lookout for the next fare to help pay the mortgage or delivery address.

My Mrs has never ridden a bike in her life (busy road and overprotective parents) however, of the two of us she is the better driver and has done her advanced driving course. By this logic she'd never have ever driven a car and I'd have been stuck driving rather than cycling as public transport for home to work is difficult and would mean 5am - 7pm days for one or both of us.

Edit - just for the record 2009: 5000+ cycled miles 200+ driven
 

CopperBrompton

Bicycle: a means of transport between cake-stops
Location
London
I'd have no problem with either proposal.

As a kid, the deal my parents did with me was I had to pass my Cycling Proficiency Test with a score of 100% before I was allowed to cycle on main roads (ie. beyond the residential roads we lived on).

I took out a British Cycling membership specifically for the third-party cover, because in the unlikely event of me riding into a Ferrari, I'd like to know that the costs are covered.

Conversely, I have often argued that one should have to pass both a cycling test and a motorcycling test before being allowed to take a car test.
 
Was that your ex that wrote to the Echo about a month ago saying exactly the same thing Riverman? As SBIB says it's the the drivers who have not taken lessons/tests so therefore don't have a clue about how to treat more vunarable road users that are the most dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians. As a CTC member I also have third party insurance.
 

shouldbeinbed

Rollin' along
Location
Manchester way
I forgot to mention - fully comp insurance negotiated with my house insurers, it covers theft, damage to my & others vehicles &property, personal liability insurance, etc. Pretty much a cycle guard level of cover for only £80 a year extra on my contents premium.
 
OP
OP
Riverman

Riverman

Guru
Nope that wasn't her in the echo.

Ben I agree with you about kids. I think they should be forced to pass a test to go on the road but adults. No way man!
 
Top Bottom