to think cyclists ought to sit a test before being allowed on the road?(508 Posts)
I live on a route popular with amateur cyclists. Yet again this morning another group of folk were causing absolute havoc on a two lane road. They aren't dressed properly, they don't signal, they don't even look where they're going. One man was weaving along instead of cycling in a straight line!
So while I have a cup of tea and a cake (for medicinal reasons)- aibu to think that they should have to be tested before being allowed on the road? I know drivers are the biggest hazard, but safety works both ways!
Massively expensive - would require a licensing system similar to the DVLA, and thousands of testing centres around the country.
Are you willing to pay for that?
YANBU. They should also have insurance, seeing as they can cause accidents and damage to people's cars, as well as a visible form of identification the same way motorists have to have registration plates.
I would make under 17's exempt from having insurance and registration though, but they should still need to do a test.
Honestly- yes, I am willing to pay for that. It's relentless on this road and there are some mornings I've genuinely been afraid of hitting a cyclist.
Mostwicked, surely the cyclists could pay for it the same way motorists do?
How do you think I t would work - like car driving so you need to be a certain age before you apply? What happens while you are learning?
I think 16 and over would be a reasonable age.
While you're learning, you are always accompanied by someone (over 21, maybe) who has passed their own test. The driving theory test could cover both cycling and driving, and tests could be done either in a group or individually.
Don't tar all us cyclists with the same brush. I know there are some knobheads on bikes out there but there are a lot more bad drivers than bad cyclists.
Test or training isn't a bad idea as some people don't seem to know the rules of the road as well as they should but insurance and registration is over the top imo. We need to be encouraging more people to cycle, not less.
Plus there is always two sides to the story. You might say that the cyclist swerved out in front of you but the cyclist might have been swerving to avoid a pothole and the highway chose requires that you car drivers ensure that the cyclist has enough room to do so. Therefore it's your fault. This is just an example and again, I know some people cycle like right tits. But I'm a bit defensive because cyclists get a lot of abuse from drivers just for being on the roads.
I'm also angry that just this morning, I was in the cycle box at some lights and even though the light was red, the car behind me crept around to overtake me on my right then zoomed off and immediately turned left right in front of me, completely cutting me up. Dick. Clearly just pissed off that I was in front of him.
Anyway, that's not the point! Test- not a bad idea.
Maybe they should have a test before cycling on the pavement too. Actually that's illegal anyway so someone should tell the cyclists who nearly knock me over on a regular basis
SantanaLopez that would mean that children would not be able to cycle to school or out with their friends.
Many of these ideas would simply kill off cycling, which although a lot of people would be happy with that, I think would be a bad thing. Cycling is good for you, and is a cheap and effective way of getting around, and does not cause pollution, and should be encouraged IMO not made into something so expensive that only the rich can afford it, and stop people starting while they are young and of an age to get into it.
We have a great tradition of producing world class cyclists in the UK and it would be an end to that, which would be a real shame.
WooWooOwl pedestrians can also cause damage to people's cars, and indeed to their bicycles, should they have numberplates and insurance and all the rest of it as well?
I never understand this anti-cyclist stance TBH, when cycling is so patently a good thing, while cars cause pollution and kill 1000s of people every year.
The children in our borough all do cycling proficiency (I assume - as I see them out on the roads during school time in groups with special vests on and teacher types).
It is a shame if that is not universal.
There is a driving test. It doesn't stop there being bad drivers unfortunately!
Some cyclists behave dangerously but some drivers kill cyclists.
I'm not sure a test, but maybe a compulsory short course of some sort.
There are a huge amount where we live, always cycling events on the lanes round us. Some of them do cause danger to themselves and others on the road.
Children here do their cycling proficiency.
Perhaps what's needed is stricter policing of the highway code, rules for cyclists etc?
Aye, because having licences for cars means drivers NEVER cause any accidents, doesn't it?
It's a bad idea - just like compulsory insurance and compulsory helmet wear - which has been tried in other places and shown not to work.
Want to improve the safety of everyone on the road? Introduce far better training on how to properly behave around all vulnerable road users into the driving test.
I did a cycling proficiency test at school (in the 70s). I have tried to find similar schemes recently, but it seems that they are few and far between. Surely it starts with teaching children how to behave on the roads in the first instance?
Cycling should be promoted better by the government - but in so doing there needs to be suitable training and information put into place to make is safe for all road users.
It stupid to let people on the roads without a clue about the rules or safety.
I agree with guybrush (love the name to btw lechuck)
I am a cyclist and a driver. Drivers rarely give cyclists enough room, I think a general brush up for All drivers and all cyclists is not a bad idea. If you want to test all cyclists, then yabu without adding an extra bit into the driving test that shows proper road behaviour near cyclists. Ie treat them like a car...give them enough room at junctions, don't sneak up beside them or pretend you can't see them etc.
Aye, because having licences for cars means drivers NEVER cause any accidents, doesn't it?
I imagine that it means they cause far fewer accidents than if they were let loose on the road with no training.
I do appreciate that there are good and bad cyclists but some if the cyclists round here beggar belief. Cycling in the dark with no helmets, no lights as wearing dark clothing. How am I supposed to take preventative action regarding that vulnerable road user if I can't bloody see them?
And don't get me started on the local woman who tows her DC in a bike trailer in rush hour while wearing iPod headphones and no helmet
I think a lot more cycle tracks to keep cyclists of the road would help a lot (realise that this can't be done in some areas).
The trouble is, cycling on a busy road with a lorry up your backside is terrifying for the first time, and I don't see how people could possibly practice for it without, well, actually doing it a few times. No matter how great you get on cycling off road, it doesn't really prepare you for cycling on a busy road IME, so I don't see how practising/testing could be done without causing the same problem of inexperienced cyclists on the road.
The point being that people do stupid things regardless of tests and training.
Bikes and cars are not the same. The dangers are different.
We want to encourage people to cycle, and putting unnecessarily barriers in the way is not how to do it. By all means put more kids through bikeability, but having licences and tests is not the way to go. It would be hugely expensive and almost impossible to enforce and administer.
Like I said, if people are genuinely concerned about safety - rather than getting one over those "fucking cyclists" which is usually the motivation behind these threads - campaign for better education for all.
The difference between cyclists and pedestrians, and cars and lorries, is that when the former fuck up, they are most likely to damage or kill themselves. When the latter fuck up, they are most likely to damage or kill others, potentially many many others.
Motorbikes sit somewhere in the middle, I guess.
Penalising the vulnerable people who are using the roads because the people who are not vulnerable see them as annoying is arse about face IMO.
I see far far worse & more aggressive & dangerous behaviour from people driving cars, vans & lorries than from anyone else on the road. The statistics around the injury death & damage caused by the different modes of transport will bear this out.
If there is a single group of road users who could do with improvement, it would be people who drive cars & vans, IMO.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.