Should the U.K.driving test include a compulsory element in dealing with groups of cyclists?

[Mrs M]

I got a lift once from a friends father to the stables when I used to ride horses.
There was a lone horse and rider ahead of us, going in same direction.
As we approached my friends dad asked my advice on how to pass, "wide and slow" is the norm I advised.
My friends father was a driving instructor.

 

[arch684]

If your opinion doesn't matter, why are you even contributing?

I'm arguing for a change to the law whilst you appear to be in favour of nothing changing.

You are arguing for a change in the law then you are doing in the wrong place

 

[MontyVeda]

You are arguing for a change in the law then you are doing in the wrong place

Why are you even contributing to this thread? You're clearly not interested in the topic.

 

[arch684]

Not interested because i don't agree with you. the o p was should overtaking a group of cyclists be included in the driving test,Imo it's not the law that needs to change but the attitude of drivers and if the courts continue to give out small sentences then nothing will change And your correct i have now lost interest

 

[gbb]

I'd love the test to have to include a large vehicle driving element as well. I'd pay the extra just for the giggles. I passed my driving test in 1991, it was shockingly simple to pass. It wasn't fit for purpose then, let alone now.

Have to disagree a bit. I passed my test in 1976 when compared to today, it was pitifully easy. If it was so poor, why am I..and presumably you, not terrible drivers ?..because its not the test thats the problem, its people. Ive made mistakes in the car..and will probably do so again, thats human nature. But, overall, I drive carefully and considerately...sadly some do not.
That said, an element of how to drive considerately towards other road users may have some use...but once people have that licence, its up to the individual if they continue to do so.
Personally I think its a waste of time (training drivers how to pass a group of cyclists)...in some almost 40 years of driving, the amount of groups of cyclists ive had to negotiate is pitifully small. Its such a rarity, I cant remember the last time I did.

 

[young Ed]

Wrong.

ok true if your suspension collapses tomorrow on a car that has an MOT it would be pulled by a copper and deemed un road worthy and you would be charged with some offence or another. at the same time just because you didn't speed during your driving test doesn't mean you not going to speed afterwards, just because you had two fully working headlights during your MOT test doesn't mean they aren't going to fail on the way home

basically there is no way to guarantee anything after the test be it the driving test or the MOT test or what ever else
Cheers Ed

 

[confusedcyclist]

I think it was in this very forum that I learnt that professional driving instructors are not required to hold an "advanced" licence in order to teach students. So that is to say any moron and their idiotic ideas about safe cycling (i.e. telling students bikes must ride on the pavement, should not ride in the centre of the road, must use the cycle path etc etc) are pumping out even more idiots on to the roads.

I've had driving instructors shouting abuse at me while being close passed by the student. As others have said, it's mostly about driving and treating other road users and pedestrians with courtesy. I.e. Stopping to let vulnerable road users pass etc.

I personally believe the key to improving safety is greater regulation of driving instructors and an emphasis of cycling safety during the theory and practical tests, there should be no excuse for close passes and dangerous driving through pinch points, non of which I recall being taught or tested on when I learned to drive in 2008. How you would tackle private tutors (father and son etc) I don't know, perhaps banning the possibility outright?

 

[Smokin Joe]

I think it was in this very forum that I learnt that professional driving instructors are not required to hold an "advanced" licence in order to teach students. So that is to say any moron and their idiotic ideas about safe cycling (i.e. telling students bikes must ride on the pavement, should not ride in the centre of the road, must use the cycle path etc etc) are pumping out even more idiots on to the roads.

Pardon? Who on earth told you that nonsense?

ADIs have to take an advanced driving test lasting 1.1/2 hours to a standard far higher than the Institute of Advanced Motorists test (I've done both). More than six minor faults (ie failure to look in the mirror = one fault) and you don't pass. There then follows a test of instructional ability which is the same length, and at regular intervals they have to go through an assessment with a senior examiner sitting in the car during a lesson. Only three out of every ten applicants make the grade, so whatever bad experience you may have had it will not be typical of ADIs in general. Driving instructors are heavily regulated already (Including enhanced CRB checks) and driving (Other than a single 3 pointer) or criminal convictions means they are out on their ear.

And I have no axe to grind on this, it's 11 years since I packed up instructing.

 

[gbb]

You don't need to educate some motorists to think more about cyclists...you need to educate them to simply be better, safer, more considerate drivers. Then cyclists as well as every other road user, pedestrians included, will all benefit.
I won't hold my breath though , it'll never happen. You'll never educate everyone to drive sensibly, the gross stupidity I see on country roads on my commute by car, let alone a bike, beggar belief sometimes.
That's a defeatist view of course, but its a realists one as well. As well as people driving stupidly, you have to contend with human error, but that's something we're all capable of.

But is it really so bad out there ?...millions of drivers and cyclists leave home each day....99.999% of us get back safely year in year out.
I'm wandering in and out of different frames of mind on it all, ultimately what do you do about the small minority (because that's what it is) who drive like eejits...I propose if you get convicted of any motoring offence, you have a black box compulsorily fitted in your car, you can then be monitored for speeding etc etc, and you WOULD be monitored. It'd force you to drive within the limits. Its not a cure all but it'd make those guys slow down a bit, stop them driving round like the roads are a racetrack.
As much pie in the sky as training drivers how to pass groups of cyclists though

 

[gbb]

I think it was in this very forum that I learnt that professional driving instructors are not required to hold an "advanced" licence in order to teach students. So that is to say any moron and their idiotic ideas about safe cycling (i.e. telling students bikes must ride on the pavement, should not ride in the centre of the road, must use the cycle path etc etc) are pumping out even more idiots on to the roads.

I've had driving instructors shouting abuse at me while being close passed by the student. As others have said, it's mostly about driving and treating other road users and pedestrians with courtesy. I.e. Stopping to let vulnerable road users pass etc.

I personally believe the key to improving safety is greater regulation of driving instructors and an emphasis of cycling safety during the theory and practical tests, there should be no excuse for close passes and dangerous driving through pinch points, non of which I recall being taught or tested on when I learned to drive in 2008. How you would tackle private tutors (father and son etc) I don't know, perhaps banning the possibility outright?

Pardon? Who on earth told you that nonsense?

ADIs have to take an advanced driving test lasting 1.1/2 hours to a standard far higher than the Institute of Advanced Motorists test (I've done both). More than six minor faults (ie failure to look in the mirror = one fault) and you don't pass. There then follows a test of instructional ability which is the same length, and at regular intervals they have to go through an assessment with a senior examiner sitting in the car during a lesson. Only three out of every ten applicants make the grade, so whatever bad experience you may have had it will not be typical of ADIs in general. Driving instructors are heavily regulated already (Including enhanced CRB checks) and driving (Other than a single 3 pointer) or criminal convictions means they are out on their ear.

And I have no axe to grind on this, it's 11 years since I packed up instructing.

Is Confused cyclist is talking about 'ordinary' driving instructors while you are thinking ADI's, I assume advanced driving instructors. My ex SIL trained to be a driving instructor (waste of time, there's too many of them chasing too few students she soon found out)...I don't recall her talking about taking an advanced motoring test.
I'll happily be educated otherwise, i'm not sure, but I suspect you two are talking about different levels of driving instructor.

 

[Smokin Joe]

Is Confused cyclist is talking about 'ordinary' driving instructors while you are thinking ADI's, I assume advanced driving instructors. My ex SIL trained to be a driving instructor (waste of time, there's too many of them chasing too few students she soon found out)...I don't recall her talking about taking an advanced motoring test.
I'll happily be educated otherwise, i'm not sure, but I suspect you two are talking about different levels of driving instructor.

No, the term ADI stands for Approved Driving Instructor. There is no other category of instructor.

If your ex SiL is training to become one she will have to take a written exam, advanced driving test and a test of instructional ability.

 

[gbb]

No, the term ADI stands for Approved Driving Instructor. There is no other category of instructor.

If your ex SiL is training to become one she will have to take a written exam, advanced driving test and a test of instructional ability.

Thats cleared it up nicely, I wasnt sure...

 

[Dan B]

Maybe all cyclist should take an HGV course.

Probably impractical, but if it were possible would vastly increase the number of people who are aware that some vehicles are just too intrinsically dangerous to be allowed on the public roads

 

[Smokin Joe]

Probably impractical, but if it were possible would vastly increase the number of people who are aware that some vehicles are just too intrinsically dangerous to be allowed on the public roads

A lot of people say that about bicycles.

 

[confusedcyclist]

Pardon? Who on earth told you that nonsense?

ADIs have to take an advanced driving test lasting 1.1/2 hours to a standard far higher than the Institute of Advanced Motorists test (I've done both). More than six minor faults (ie failure to look in the mirror = one fault) and you don't pass. There then follows a test of instructional ability which is the same length, and at regular intervals they have to go through an assessment with a senior examiner sitting in the car during a lesson. Only three out of every ten applicants make the grade, so whatever bad experience you may have had it will not be typical of ADIs in general. Driving instructors are heavily regulated already (Including enhanced CRB checks) and driving (Other than a single 3 pointer) or criminal convictions means they are out on their ear.

And I have no axe to grind on this, it's 11 years since I packed up instructing.

I stand corrected! I was a bit surprised to hear that, and glad I was misinformed!