Should a cyclist be allowed on the road

[slowmotion]

{ smashes head into keyboard in total frustration}

I just want to ride my bike, OK? That gives me a sense of freedom. Do you really want HMG to take that away from you with a load of badly framed, and badly policed legislation?

 

[NigC]

{ smashes head into keyboard in total frustration}

I just want to ride my bike, OK? That gives me a sense of freedom. Do you really want HMG to take that away from you with a load of badly framed, and badly policed legislation?

First of all: don't worry, it will never happen in a million years.

Second: How much of a hardship would it really be? Yes, you'd have to take a test - you're an experienced cyclist, so that's going to be a piece of cake. Then what? pay for a licence. And then? If you're a competent cyclist..... nothing - if you're stopped by the police for doing something stupid..... show your licence, maybe a fine, maybe some points??? Your fault for being stupid!

I took my driving test 24 years ago and I've only had reason to dig it out of my wallet a couple of times. Actually, now I need to find it for work to photocopy for their records and I'm really not sure where it is - I thought it was in my wallet - but no

Anyway, like I said, it's never going to happen.... but it does make for a good forum debate

 

[quidditys_shore]

i remember when i was about 7 we had a policeman come to school telling use about cycling & also getting our bikes stamped with our postcode. dont think that still happens now!

i think there should be 1 day a year at school where you get cycle training. i'm sure it wouldnt be that hard to do

i've contacted my local council as they do free cycle training, so will be having some training myself! so how about a leaflet to be given away with every new bike you buy which givens you information on cycling, the rules of the road & contact info for the cycle training officer at your local council.

 

[brokenbetty]

No, you can't.

Level of health, below current requirements, is completely irrelevant in respect of ability to drive a car. So you can't impose restrictions on who can drive based on this.

Come on then, make just as good a case...

You've made it for me by adding that little clarification that up until now you left out.

There's no absolute answer on whether it's relevant per se, it just depends where you choose to draw the line. It's irrelevant to the ability to drive a car but it's highly relevant to the number of premature deaths attributable to car use.

Clearly since you are only looking as far as better driving driver health is irrelevant in your opinion.

I think the real goal is to save lives. Better driving is one way to do that but so is better health. That means in my opinion both are relevant.

As I said, I'm leaving it now. Please feel free to have the last word, I'm sure the gymnastics will be entertaining.

 

[brokenbetty]

Still missing the point. You're advocating irrelevant restrictions on permission to drive. That's all there is to it. And it's not an opinion, it's a fact.

If you want to encourage good health, that's great, go ahead. But you can't tell people that they're too unhealthy to drive a car when they're not.

Still missing the point. I'm not telling people they are too unhealthy to drive a car. I'm telling people they aren't allowed to drive a car until they are healthy. Different.

 

[Stig-OT-Dump]

Another fundamental reason why compulsory training, testing and certifying would be a bad thing is that the perceived vulnerability of (particularly younger) cyclists would diminish. The research into passing room carried out by Dr Walker concluded that cyclists who appeared vulnerable were given greater passing room and presumably drivers were significantly more forgiving, understanding and cautious when passing.

If every driver knew that a kid on the road must have undergone training, and would therefore behave in an entirely safe and predictable manner, they will make less of an adjustment to their driving thus increasing the risk to the cyclist.

I don't think that would be a desirable outcome.

 

[magnatom]

Forget all the talk of making cycle training compulsory. It'll never happen (although it would be nice, with medical exemptions).

What about incentivising it. Someone is learning to drive a car. If they take the extra cycle training and pass that as well they get a discount in car insurance once they learn to drive.

 

[brokenbetty]

That's exactly what you're saying. Hopefully you can see now that what you think is a nice side-benefit is an irrelevant and inappropriate restriction.

Bored now. Don't you understand that irrelevant is only meaningful because you placed an arbitrary boundary on the possible benefits, while inappropriate is by definition a value judgement and therefore just as subjective?

Despite what you seem to think, this stuff isn't handed down by some god or built into the fabric of the universe, it's all just decisions humans make on how they want to organise things. You can think inside the box if you want but don't try and claim it's anything more than that.

 

[HJ]

The road were there before the car, we all have the right to use the roads. Drivers are licensed for a reason, think about why it is that drivers have to take a test. Cyclist are not the problem, so why should they be make to take a test, where is the risk from cyclist? Cycling is a good thing for a range of reasons and should be promoted as a right.

 

[Jezston]

Still missing the point. I'm not telling people they are too unhealthy to drive a car. I'm telling people they aren't allowed to drive a car until they are healthy. Different.

Quoted for hilarity.

 

[brokenbetty]

Missing the point. Fat people can drive cars as well as fit people. Your proposal would stop them. It's a ridiculous suggestion. Maybe from a good motive, but your lack of thought makes it a ridiculous suggestion.

Missing the point. Taking the long view driving is more dangerous for unfit people than fit people. Your lack of thought is leading you to confuse the way we do things today with the only way they can be done. It's ridiculous to assert that ability to drive is the only possible criterion for permission to drive.

 

[brokenbetty]

Quoted for hilarity.

I hope you do see the difference, otherwise this is quoted for irony

 

[gavintc]

The road were there before the car, we all have the right to use the roads. Drivers are licensed for a reason, think about why it is that drivers have to take a test. Cyclist are not the problem, so why should they be make to take a test, where is the risk from cyclist? Cycling is a good thing for a range of reasons and should be promoted as a right.

I completely support HJ's comments. We do not need to build barriers to cycling. This why is dislike any suggestion of helmet compulsion and licensing. Cycling is intrinsically good. We should lower the entry level - get more people cycling, not less by making it more difficult to do.

 

[brokenbetty]

Yup. Still ridiculous.

Smokers. Should we take their driving license away until they stop?

Sure, if we decide it's a good idea. It's just a social construct after all. Don't think you'd get many votes for it but there's no fundamental reason you couldn't do it.

Free your mind User

 

[brokenbetty]

Fat people shouldn't be allowed to drive. Yup. Still ridiculous.

You're not very good at this.

"Shouldn't be allowed" - by who?
"ridiculous" - in who's opinion?