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

[Riverman]

I think we've established that the way to prevent anything like this from happening is to get more people cycling.

 

[CopperBrompton]

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!

I'd imagine most adult cyclists start cycling when they are kids, so the distinction you draw wouldn't really exist.

 

[PBancroft]

I am both a cyclist and a motorist.

Yesterday whilst driving on the M3 a flat bed truck moved out to the middle lane without indicating. The major problem with that was that I was already occupying that space and had to take swift evasive action. I shudder to think what would have happened if I couldn't react safely in time.

The last time I saw a cyclist put someone else's life in danger by behaving in such a reckless, irresponsible and downright dangerous manner was, ooooooh let me think... Never. Yet this kind of thing happens on our roads on a daily basis and most people barely bat an eyelid.

I bet if your ex goes outside tomorrow morning she would see plenty of so-called responsible motorists driving with frosted up windows and far too fast for the road conditions. If she actually looked she would see drivers running through red lights, generally driving too fast, failing to take account of other road users at junctions and in general, parking illegally and basically acting selfishly.

Before she turns her ire on cyclists (and I hasten to add that cyclists are not inherently angelic) she should take a look at the road users who have passed all the tests the law requires yet still kill thousands per year.

 

[CopperBrompton]

The last time I saw a cyclist put someone else's life in danger by behaving in such a reckless, irresponsible and downright dangerous manner was, ooooooh let me think... Never.

It's certainly less common, but not rare. I see London cyclists go through red lights all the time (and yes, I see car, bus and lorry drivers do it too, but in nothing like the same numbers), and most junctions in London have pedestrians at them.

Indeed, I witnessed a light-jumping cyclist collide with a pedestrian at speed only recently: http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=48187

 

[PBancroft]

It's certainly less common, but not rare. I see London cyclists go through red lights all the time (and yes, I see car, bus and lorry drivers do it too, but in nothing like the same numbers), and most junctions in London have pedestrians at them.

Indeed, I witnessed a light-jumping cyclist collide with a pedestrian at speed only recently: http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=48187

Cyclists do these things - and I make no attempts to deny it. However I am referring specifically here to actions which endanger the lives of other people.

The cyclist colliding with a pedestrian would be an example of this. But how many road deaths are caused by motorists... and how many are caused by cyclists?

 

[CopperBrompton]

It's not just about deaths, though. To pick up on a recent example from another thread, how many blind people are killed by drivers parking on the pavement? That doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

 

[PBancroft]

It's not just about deaths, though. To pick up on a recent example from another thread, how many blind people are killed by drivers parking on the pavement? That doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

But that's the thing. It is about deaths, it's just that it isn't only about deaths. It isn't an either or debate.

However it should also be about priority. What's more important - a cyclist running a red light, cycling on the pavement, intentionally delaying traffic or otherwise behaving irresponsibly (and it is irresponsible), or the near three thousand people killed each year by motor vehicles.

Culturally at the moment we do very little about either, but in my view the latter should be tackled first and hardest.

 

[CopperBrompton]

Originally Posted by Ben Lovejoy
It's not just about deaths, though.

But that's the thing. It is about deaths, it's just that it isn't only about deaths.

The words 'only' and 'just' have identical meanings in this context. You have merely repeated the point I made.

It isn't an either or debate.

Again. Which is why we can call for improved driving standards (I've outlined my own views on this many times, but have summarised them again below) at the same time as calling for improved cycling standards.

My view on how we tackle driving standards:

1. Pass a cycling test first
2. Pass a motorcycling test second
3. Pass a current L-test in a car to get an interim licence valid for 2 years
4. Convert it to a full licence by passing an IAM-standard test
5. Retake the IAM-standard test every 5 years to keep your licence

 

[wafflycat]

But that's the thing. It is about deaths, it's just that it isn't only about deaths. It isn't an either or debate.

However it should also be about priority. What's more important - a cyclist running a red light, cycling on the pavement, intentionally delaying traffic or otherwise behaving irresponsibly (and it is irresponsible), or the near three thousand people killed each year by motor vehicles.

Culturally at the moment we do very little about either, but in my view the latter should be tackled first and hardest.

Quite. As a cyclist I don't cycle on the footpath, I don't jump red lights, I use lights etc. and generally try to be a reasonable person. Indeed I have no time for those who do partake of dangerous and anti-social cycling. Indeed if they get pulled over by plod for such things, it's entirely their own fault. But back in the real world, where things like money and resources for policing etc., are very limited, surely it makes sense to aim those resources where they will make the most positive difference. And the bottom line is it isn't anti-social cyclists killing and maiming thousands of people on an annual basis. It is errant motorists doing it - and that's where the resources should be aimed - at stopping errant motorists.

 

[swee'pea99]

The cyclist colliding with a pedestrian would be an example of this. But how many road deaths are caused by motorists... and how many are caused by cyclists?

To answer this really quite important question, the latest stats suggest figures of 3,000 and a little under one.

Re the original query, and with little or no apparent concern for the acres of sterile 'debate' it may kick off, the obvious comparison is with helmet compulsion laws, which as far as I'm aware are still backed by the BMA despite mountains of evidence from around the world clearly demonstrating that such laws do nothing but dissuade vast numbers of people from cycling, thus significantly adding to our obesity and unfitness epidemic. (Perhaps doctors view it as safeguarding their employment....)

 

[PBancroft]

The words 'only' and 'just' have identical meanings in this context. You have merely repeated the point I made.

I know. The point I was making is that I agree with you on this factor.

 

[PBancroft]

Again. Which is why we can call for improved driving standards (I've outlined my own views on this many times, but have summarised them again below) at the same time as calling for improved cycling standards.

This is very honorable, and not without merit, but it does rather neatly ignore the purpose of my response to the OP.

The OPs ex thinks that cycling tests and insurance should be mandatory due to poor cycling behaviour. I do not dispute that certain cyclists do behave badly, but so do some drivers, and the ramifications are much worse. The anger she feels towards cyclists is, in my view, utterly misplaced.

 

[CopperBrompton]

I would agree that she has things somewhat out of proportion, yes.

 

[bonk man]

she is only saying due to being a scorned ex ...

 

[Twenty Inch]

3200 people who would be alive today if some motorists had made better decisions about what speed to drive at, how much to drink, and how to behave. I don't think your ex has much of an argument.