take a test??

[BentMikey]

Everyone is a road user at sometime. It is just that some think that because they are using motorised transport that they have some sort of greater privileged right of access. We have the right to use the road, we all also have a responsibility to not endanger others by our actions.

Even some cyclists think like this, but usually they are put right about their attitude pretty soon by the rest of us.

 

[PBancroft]

hi guys.
i think everyone who uses the public roads should take a test
on the highway code every five years.
whats your thoughts??
don

This is potentially going to be a little long winded, but you did ask...

Personally I wouldn't be against taking a test, but I can see why it would be difficult to roll it out for all road users. As other people have mentioned, pedestrians can cause road offences too, as can horse riders - both of which would be hard to roll out a test for. Also, these "other" road users are often drivers as well as cyclists etc - a point often missed. A way around this would be to have one catch all test, which would require all road users to be tested on two or more forms of transport. This would involve drivers choosing to take the test in a car, and one other, say bike or whatever. In turn these would have to be classified to prevent two similar tests being taken and allowing bias (e.g., car and minibus).

EDIT: Just to be clear, I think that for the sheer amount of bureaucracy that would be required to run such a system, the one we currently have is probably best suited to the job.

However (and I've said this before) I think we should have mandatory re-training and courses for all those who cause a traffic offence (however minor) on the first incident. This would be for pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, UFOs, and yes, drivers. This would be at the cost of the person who causes the offence, not the tax payer. Drivers, cyclists, etc., can forgo the retraining if they want, but cannot use any vehicles on the public roads again until they do.

Let's do away with this rubbish "points" malarkey which almost encourages people to speed or drive dangerously because they know how many points they'll have to rack up before they lose their licence.

 

[Arch]

However (and I've said this before) I think we should have mandatory re-training and courses for all those who cause a traffic offence (however minor) on the first incident. This would be for pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, UFOs, and yes, drivers. This would be at the cost of the person who causes the offence, not the tax payer. Drivers, cyclists, etc., can forgo the retraining if they want, but cannot use any vehicles on the public roads again until they do.

Excellent compromise - obviously, we'd rather there was no offence to begin with, but this might at least prevent a repeat. I fear it'll be bogged down in questions of blame though - when pride and money are at stake, I think a lot of people will go to extraordinary lengths to try and shift the blame. Did that pedestrian look right, left and right again, before crossing the road, or only right and left... The latter? And he was wearing an ipod (albeit with volume low enough to be able to hear over it, but who's to know that except the wearer?) Well then m'lud, he was to blame as much as I was for driving over the speed limit...

 

[Tynan]

a third of the drivers in London supposedly don't have insurance, gawd know about licenses and MOTs

I'd be worrying about that

 

[4F]

Of course the other thing to take into this is if you wanted to have test for cyclists what age would this start from ?? My kids have been riding on the road with me since the age of 5.

At the end of the day people already know what the rules are but bend them to suit their own needs and know how much they can get away with. I think a much better campaign would be to lower the drink drive limit to zero, everyone would know exactly where they were then without think "I should be OK with just one more"

 

[Cab]

Cab I often ride in the primary position on the way in to work (mostly down hill), but when I cycle home, mostly in secondary there is still just as much gridlock. It is not the cyclist that are causing the congestion, it is the fact that there more cars on the road then there is road capacity. Hence even though I can't ride at 25 to 30 mph up hill and keep up with the speed of cars the way I do on the way to work. I still get home faster, because I can just filter past them once they have reached a bottle neck, which due to the limited capacity of our roads there are plenty.

And thats quite fine, on many roads in some cities. Imagine all the slower pavement cyclists, the ones who aren't doing anything like a decent speed but who are going along at their own pace (which is fair enough). Take them and put them at junctions, maintaining primary as they should. It isn't cyclists causing congestion (they're not the majority road users, they aren't the problem), but they would certainly be restricting traffic speed and giving the impression of congestion to those behind them. No bad thing really, but not in any way the way we Brits treat our roads.

 

[summerdays]

I have one road where I become an obstruction - its uphill (A38 going south out of Bristol), its 3 lanes wide in a one way loop. Two of the lanes go back into town with traffic lights at the top of the road to make those lanes of traffic stationary. I'm in the left lane doing about 4 mph and it takes me about 2 or 3 minutes to do this section. In secondary position a car can get by ... anything else has to wait as it can't pass me with the other two lanes of traffic. I hate going up that hill with the engine noise of a lorry waiting behind me, and knowing that there is a load of cars behind that.
It is the one place I would really like to have a shared path/cycle route - only the pavement isn't that wide.

 

[BentMikey]

I reckon the only way Cab's view will become the right one is because all those well-trained cyclists will help cause a huge movement towards cycling. With 2 or 3 times as many cyclists on the roads, car traffic will be so much reduced that the cyclists really will be the slowdown factor because now there are fewer jams to slow the cars up.

I know I wouldn't like to lose the satisfaction of filtering past so many vehicles!

 

[HJ]

This has turn out to be a really interesting thread, what happened to the troll? It hasn't posted recently...

 

[gambatte]

I know. I'm still waiting for the link to the part of the HC that says that if passing on the inside lane you must be travelling at less than 3mph.

Its a hidden part of the HC, you have to enter it through a link on WWW.you'reabawbagcyclist.disorg.uk*




(link wont work)

 

[Kerher]

I know what you mean. I think that it should be mandatory everywhere! I am an American and don't see the same traffic that you do, but it is definitely a problem. Because they don't put many bike lanes up around here I take up a lane if I have to, too many people will try and pass with no room if I don't. Only Been hit once, but it was head on. Like all cyclists out there I have had plenty of near misses. Had one today in fact, lady was in middle turning lane and decided that she wanted to go the other direction when her light turned... nearly hit me as she took off and I was passing her 2 lanes over. Simply idiots!

I ride every day, except snow and ice, over 2 years now. Best part of my day!

 

[Aperitif]

Hello Kerher - enjoy your time here...don't forget to drop in at the café!

 

[magnatom]

Its a hidden part of the HC, you have to enter it through a link on WWW.you'reabawbagcyclist.disorg.uk*




(link wont work)

But this very similarly titled website will work! http://bawbagcyclist.blogspot.com

 

[gambatte]

But this very similarly titled website will work! http://bawbagcyclist.blogspot.com

Mags plugging his fansite again!


:?: