Should learning to drive include cycle training?

[Rhythm Thief]

I'd be brutal, if you don't want to drive a big motorbike, then fine, but you won't be ever be driving a car.

The long term intention is to reduce the number of cars on the road by over 50%.

But the skills for riding a motorbike and driving a car are completely different in many respects, just as having my car licence when I took my HGV tests was absolutely no use whatsoever. And to propose that a licence be required to ride a bicycle on the road, and that you can't get that licence until you're 15 (15? I was cycling long before that) is the start of a very slippery slope indeed.

 

[tyred]

I have no particular interest in motorcycles myself but agree that riding one teaches people to read the road and spot potential hazards in a way that driving a car doesn't so I understand this point of view.

15 is too old to be allowing people out on bikes. I was riding bikes on the road when I was about 5 or 6.

 

[mr Mag00]

i think far simpler than getting them to pass a bike test, although I think this is a good idea especially as I am training as a bikability trainer, get them to stand or walk alongside the edge of a busy road and experience cars passing them at speed.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

I have been advocating a pass in a compulsory cycle test before you can apply for a driving test for years. I'd go further, once you have your cycle licence (which you may be able to get from the age of 10) then (if old enough) you can apply for your motorbike licence, once you have that you can apply for your big motorbike licence, then to a small car licence, small car to big car, big car to van, van to HGV.

In each stage there would be at least a year before you could progress to the next stage. In reality in terms of age it would make very little difference to the current rules

15 Cycle
16 small motorbike
17 big bike
18 small car
19 big car
20 van
21 HGV

It would reduce the number of car drivers, but we need to cut the number of drivers on the roads by more than half in the next decade or so anyway

+1 to everyone thats flagged this as a stupid idea, there's more holes in it than a tramps underwear

 

[Arch]

After I logged off on Sunday, I remembered the recent Institute of Advanced Motorists survey that found that:

"Both cycling and non-cycling motorists agreed that the experience of cycling makes drivers more careful."

(story reported here: http://www.heraldscotland.com/motorists-urged-to-give-up-the-car-and-start-cycling-1.917509 I'm having trouble finding the survey itself online).

So if the IAM think experience of cycling helps, who am I to disagree?

 

[darkstar]

After I logged off on Sunday, I remembered the recent Institute of Advanced Motorists survey that found that:

"Both cycling and non-cycling motorists agreed that the experience of cycling makes drivers more careful."

(story reported here: http://www.heraldscotland.com/motorists-urged-to-give-up-the-car-and-start-cycling-1.917509 I'm having trouble finding the survey itself online).

So if the IAM think experience of cycling helps, who am I to disagree?

I don't think anyone is denying that Arch, well I'm not, just the methods to achieve it of which you are proposing (forcing people to cycle).

 

[Arch]

I don't think anyone is denying that Arch, well I'm not, just the methods to achieve it of which you are proposing (forcing people to cycle).

I'm not forcing people to take up cycling, if they don't want to. I'd just like to see how specific cycle awareness training - ideally coupled with some specific 'other vulnerable road users' training - even just a set of lectures would be better than nothing.

Once upon a time, you didn't need to pass a test at all to drive a car. Then you did - and the practical test evolved and grew over time (for example, it didn't include parallel parking when I took it, and as a result my sister, learning 5 years later when it did, still parallel parks better than I do) Then, eventually, the theory test was brought in (although from the examples I've seen, you have to be pretty thick to fail it). All I'm suggesting is another part to add.

Also of course, I'd like to see periodic re-testing for everyone, and more people banned for good when they prove to be serially bad or criminal drivers.

 

[darkstar]

I'm not forcing people to take up cycling, if they don't want to. I'd just like to see how specific cycle awareness training - ideally coupled with some specific 'other vulnerable road users' training - even just a set of lectures would be better than nothing.

Once upon a time, you didn't need to pass a test at all to drive a car. Then you did - and the practical test evolved and grew over time (for example, it didn't include parallel parking when I took it, and as a result my sister, learning 5 years later when it did, still parallel parks better than I do) Then, eventually, the theory test was brought in (although from the examples I've seen, you have to be pretty thick to fail it). All I'm suggesting is another part to add.

Also of course, I'd like to see periodic re-testing for everyone, and more people banned for good when they prove to be serially bad or criminal drivers.

Well thats starting to make a bit more sense to me, the other day when this subject first appeared i though you were implying everyone who want's to drive a car must complete a certain amount of time cycling?

I completely agree with the re-testing process. I also believe if people fail their test 5 times within a certain time frame they should not be aloud to take it again for a year.

 

[Arch]

Well thats starting to make a bit more sense to me, the other day when this subject first appeared i though you were implying everyone who want's to drive a car must complete a certain amount of time cycling?

I completely agree with the re-testing process. I also believe if people fail their test 5 times within a certain time frame they should not be aloud to take it again for a year.

I think you'll find I suggested a period of cycling or cycle training, I was thinking of standard Bikeability training or similar - I don't know how long it takes, off hand, but I gather that a very useful amount of adult training can be done in a day course or a few afternoons.

Hell, if we just made people read Cyclecraft it would be a start.

 

[darkstar]

I think you'll find I suggested a period of cycling or cycle training, I was thinking of standard Bikeability training or similar - I don't know how long it takes, off hand, but I gather that a very useful amount of adult training can be done in a day course or a few afternoons.

Hell, if we just made people read Cyclecraft it would be a start.

Getting to level two of bikibility costs £40-£60. The government are certainly not going to pay for it, so the 30 million drivers in britain will have to, thats a hell of a lot of money. Not feasible, unfortunately.

Maybe a cycle section being added to the theory test would start the ball rolling?

 

[Arch]

I don't think £60 is much, in the scheme of things. Not compared to the cost of buying and running a car, and insuring it.

Of course, when you consider the cost of treating someone injured in an accident (and the associated 'costs' to the economy if they are off work etc), you only have to prevent a few for the idea to pay for itself... it's like the investment in helping people give up smoking. So the govt could at least subsidise it.

 

[darkstar]

I don't think £60 is much, in the scheme of things. Not compared to the cost of buying and running a car, and insuring it.

Of course, when you consider the cost of treating someone injured in an accident (and the associated 'costs' to the economy if they are off work etc), you only have to prevent a few for the idea to pay for itself... it's like the investment in helping people give up smoking. So the govt could at least subsidise it.

I did not realise injury rates associated with cyclists were particularly high in the grand scheme of things? I see some articles in the news but there must be far more injuries to car users whilst on the road.

£60 is quite a lot of money if you consider the state pension etc Drivers who already have their car, insurace and tax in place would then have to fork out a further £60 on learning to ride a bike properly.

As for giving up smoking, pfft if an indervidual want's to stop smoking then great, bu they should do it themselves. My father smoked for 40 years (started aged 12) he decided to stop...... so just stopped. No need for the government to pay for it.

 

[Arch]

Actually, I haven't suggested anywhere that it should be retrospective, I think that would be too big a deal, even if it might be a good idea for some. The theory test wasn't retrospective when that came in.

And you seem to willfully be ignoring the idea that this training wouldn't just benefit cyclists, it would also promote empathy. That's good for everyone, and might end up saving a few motorists' lives too.

 

[darkstar]

Some people just don't care, they rive erratically, whatever other people say. So i doubt it would promote empathy, it would simply further develop the rivalry between certain drivers and cyclists. Enough people are hateful towards cyclists, let alone if they were forced to take a bikeablilty course!