Should a cyclist be allowed on the road

[HJ]

Without first proving they understand the highway code?

Marin, Lee, please feel free to join in!
Should a cyclist by right have to pass either a written or practical test before venturing out onto the road?

If they did, how would it be implemented, what would be the benefits, could you license cyclists?

Pedestrians, cyclist and horse riders use the roads by right, motorist are only allowed to use the road by licence. With that licence come a duty of care the details of which are lay out in the Highway Code, yet how many show they understand the HC by their driving?

If the Police did their job properly and enforced the law, (30mph speed limits for instance, Hit by a car at 30 mph, 20% of pedestrians will be killed and at 40 mph, 90% of pedestrians will be killed, so how come a driver has to exceeding 40 mph in a 30 mph limit before the Police will prosecute?) then we wouldn't need to has this discussion.

There would be no benefits to licensing cyclists, but there would be a lot of cost.

On the positive side it would generate a lot of work for me.

 

[Stig-OT-Dump]

There seems to be a really unhealthy preoccupation, nay obsession, with testing, certifying, licencing and generally interfering with everything these days. I think this may be fuelled by our desire to avoid blame ourselves and to point the finger of blame at other people.

I've been told I'm not allowed to use a ladder until I've been on a ladder course; not to move a box that's lying in a path between desks because I've not been on a manual handling course; I can use a harness to dive in because I have the right certificate, but I can't use the same harness to work at height unless I get a different harness cert; I'm allowed to use a jack-hammer underwater, but not on the surface.

Compulsory cycle training, certification and licencing would be terrible and would take away one of the first steps towards independence and self-reliance for loads of kids as well as discouraging lots of other people.

Including cycling - along with competent instruction that includes road and traffic safety - as part of the PE curriculum at schools would be a step in the right direction mind. And I reckon kids should be getting 3 - 5 hrs of PE a week instead of the current abysmal provision (40 minutes of movement to music or drama apparently counts as PE at our local schools - I can't see many breaking into a sweat doing that). But there is no need to examine and test proficiency in the subject, just as there is no need to take a football exam or get a licence to walk somewhere.

 

[Vikeonabike]

If there were enough Police around to do their job properly and enforce the law, (30mph speed limits for instance, Hit by a car at 30 mph, 20% of pedestrians will be killed and at 40 mph, 90% of pedestrians will be killed, so how come a driver has to exceeding 34 mph in a 30 mph limit before the CPS will prosecute?) then we wouldn't need to have this discussion.

Fixed that for you HJ

 

[brokenbetty]

That dictates that anyone who wants to drive a car has to be healthy/motivated enough to cycle. And while gaining an appreciation of the road cyclist's perspective is a relevant condition to driving, being healthy enough to cycle isn't.

You're right, that would be an added bonus of the scheme.

 

[gavintc]

There seems to be a really unhealthy preoccupation, nay obsession, with testing, certifying, licencing and generally interfering with everything these days. I think this may be fuelled by our desire to avoid blame ourselves and to point the finger of blame at other people.

I've been told I'm not allowed to use a ladder until I've been on a ladder course; not to move a box that's lying in a path between desks because I've not been on a manual handling course; I can use a harness to dive in because I have the right certificate, but I can't use the same harness to work at height unless I get a different harness cert; I'm allowed to use a jack-hammer underwater, but not on the surface.

Compulsory cycle training, certification and licencing would be terrible and would take away one of the first steps towards independence and self-reliance for loads of kids as well as discouraging lots of other people.

Including cycling - along with competent instruction that includes road and traffic safety - as part of the PE curriculum at schools would be a step in the right direction mind. And I reckon kids should be getting 3 - 5 hrs of PE a week instead of the current abysmal provision (40 minutes of movement to music or drama apparently counts as PE at our local schools - I can't see many breaking into a sweat doing that). But there is no need to examine and test proficiency in the subject, just as there is no need to take a football exam or get a licence to walk somewhere.

I agree - we have too much legislation and state control of our lives. We do not need more regulation regarding the use of bicycles. It would kill cycling and achieve very little for 'road safety' other than to impose a system of testing and regulation on society - please take your control freakery ideas to some other problem and leave cycling alone.

 

[dondare]

Drivers having heart attacks at the wheel cause a few nasty accidents each year. So not allowing anyone who is not-fit-enough to cycle to drive either might not be a bad idea.

 

[brokenbetty]

I think you missed my point.

Yes, quite deliberately as well.

The number of people killed by bad driving is dwarfed by the number of people killed by their own bad lifestyles. Being healthy enough to cycle isn't a relevant condition to driving but it is a relevant condition to living.

So if the desire to drive gets someone who is currently too unfit to cycle to the point where they can happily, comfortably and habitually ride a bike then the first life they'll save is their own.

Win-win

 

[ufkacbln]

Part of the problem is what is in the training......

CycleCraft, the IAM and many others support the concept of the "primary position" and accept that many cyclepaths are inappropriate for many cyclists

However would that make the morons who think that you have no rights on the road respect your right to ride safely?

 

[dondare]

Holy shoot, you have just won most stupid post ever and I am having this as sig material.

Not to mention those obese lorry drivers who keep falling asleep at the wheel.
Minimum standards of health and fitness for anyone operating a motor vehicle in a public place ought to be a statutary requirement.

 

[dondare]

Here we go, the beginning of another ignorant rant....

I could of course rebut the above but cannot be arsed. What I will say is that I suggest you look at the medical requirements of HGV/PSV drivers. And seriously think about how ''out of touch'' with the world you are by saying that drivers should be fit enough to ride a bike, in able for them to drive a car.

I suspect that lorry drivers meet the medical requirements just as much as their vehicles meet the legal requirements for roadworthyness.
But actually I didn't say "that drivers should be fit enough to ride a bike"; just that it might not be a bad idea.

 

[brokenbetty]

But as much as I agree, I'm not comfortable with imposing irrelevant conditions before allowing someone to drive.

Is it really irrelevant though? Driving itself encourages a sedentary lifestyle. Unfitness is a risk of driving.

 

[brokenbetty]

Yes, it's irrelevant.

It's irrelevant in your opinion.

Time to leave this one I think.

 

[HJ]

Fixed that for you HJ

Thanks, I though you might

If they did, how would it be implemented, what would be the benefits, could you license cyclists?

The real problem with the question, is that it just suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of drivers are licensed in the first place, Let’s get rid of “the vulnerable road user” cyclist, pedestrians, etc are not the problem, they are not the cause of the (on average) seven deaths a day on the roads, no those are caused by drivers.

The number of people killed by bad driving is dwarfed by the number of people killed by their own bad lifestyles.

That depends on which age group you look at, it is only true for those over the age of 60 (although this is dropping as the nation gets fatter and less health), below that age driving carries the greatest risk of premature death.

Now here is the odd thing, driving is actually more dangerous (it carries a higher risk of death or serious injury per mile travelled) than cycling, but cycle is perceived as being more dangerous. Most people are not very good at risk assessment.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Every schoolchild should take the Cycling Proficiency Test at about the age of 10-11.
I'd also be in favor of an additional test at about the age of 15-16

Whilst this is not the same as saying Cyclists need to take a test to be on the road, it would mean the majority of cyclists would have a test certificate of some sort

However, the one bit I would ensure is that if you did not have your cycling Proficiency test certificate, you could not apply for a motorcycle license.
Only once you had passed your motorcycle test and had about a year of experience could you then apply for a car license, and so it goes up, larger vechiles is one year after you have passed the test for the smaller vehicle

so you're discriminating against anyone with a medical condition or disability that may preclude their riding a bike from ever having the opportuinty to drive a motor vehicle.

severe asthma, breathing problems, thalidomide sufferers, people with particular disabilities or limb problems.

you are forcing people to put off careers where a load/passenger carrying motor vehicle is necessary until they're older

lorry drivers can only become lorry drivers some way into their 20's when they've graduated through the ranks - what do they do in the meantime? minimum wage time serving jobs whilst they wait to realise their dream or do they work toward one career only to jack it in and start again on the bottom rung in the trucking world. Do they have to put families on hold in case they have to take a big financial step back.

Why should I have to go to the hassle of paying for test year on year, then having to sell/buy vehicles, change insurance, learn a whole new set of skills and the different awarenesses that you need for different modes of transport.

how do you stop people illegally missing stages and effectively joyriding I'd suggest your plan would make for more uninsured and dangerous, untrained illegal car drivers out of people not prepared to go through years of rigmarole just to get their hands on fast, warm & dry private transport with a decent sound system and the facility to impress and transport girls/boys & more than 1 friend at a time, able to converse with them whilst moving and in greater comfort.

I can ride a bike, I can drive a car. Motorbikes I can't get - I tried as a teen/20's and kept falling off, I took training, it didn't help, I quit them before I died. My wife's lived all of her life on a busy main road, her parents never let her ride a bike and as an adult she doesn't fancy learning. My daughter, of her own free will, hates bikes and won't countenance one.

By your logic none of us could/will ever be able to drive a car. Me and Mrs have a combined 39 years driving experience,no accidents, no police trouble, not even a parking ticket and only 3 points ever between us (36 in a 30 zone on a dual carriageway with central reservation and no signage where we (I!) got onto it, 30 yards and a fence from the nearest dwelling. not that I'm still bitter or anything ).

In theory everyone on the road in a motor vehicle has had to pass a test and obtlain a licence, it really doesn't stop bad driving car v car, car v truck artic v flat bed etc does it.

It doesn't take Stephen Hawking's IQ to guess the outcome of a coming together between 12 stone of squidgy and 2 tons of metal, yet a few people still take insane risks on bikes, If they can't see the inherent danger of something vastly heavier and harder than them then training really isn't going to make a whole lot of difference.

 

[brokenbetty]

No, it's irrelevant.

No, it's irrelevant in your opinion. I can make just as good a case that it is relevant. But I'm not going to bother because as long as you're stuck in an echo chamber I don't see the point in continuing.