AIBU to think that cyclists and drivers

[helloclitty]

might be a lot more civil to each other if it was mandatory to pass tests in both cycling and driving if using the road, whether you are a cyclist or vehicle driver.

Of course there would have to be exclusions for people unable to cycle or drive for any reason (a simulator perhaps). However, with the focus on green living and the sheer increase in road traffic on our narrow city roads something has to be done. We cannot divide up the roads there is simply not enough space, we need to be able to share them and understand all road users needs as well as our own.

I think the OP has a point, but what she suggests is impractical. I don't know what the driving test currently involves (I passed about 25 years ago) but some more theory on how to interact with cyclists and pedestrians might be a good idea. Because of the potential lethality, answering any of those questions wrongly should be an automatic fail.

I'm inclined to think there should be a mandatory test for cyclists wishing to use roads - no lower age limit (though in practice probably about yr5 and up). Younger children would be allowed on the road only if accompanied.

And of course, there should be more off-road cycling provision. My area is building more paths and putting in more cycle lanes either on roads or pavements, but the connectivity isn't good enough. Sometimes there really isn't enough room for cars, pedestrians and cyclists to share safely.

I'd favour more on-pavement cycling (sections of pavement marked as dual use without necessarily having cycle lanes) - provided it was made crystal clear that cyclists always give way to pedestrians on pavements. There's a road near us where informally this is what happens - it works. The road really isn't safe to cycle on, the pavement is mostly broad. It just requires common sense and courtesy in the narrow stretches.

"I follow one every morning who doesnt cycle in the kerb, he deliberately sits in the middle of the lane so no one can over take him (a lot of on coming traffic);"

This is often the sensible way for cyclists to protect themselves - it stops drivers slipping past when there really isn't space. Plus, "cycling in the kerb" makes cyclists much harder to see, especially for drivers pulling out of side streets.

That said, it does annoy me when cyclists block the way but are just coasting along really slowly, I think that's pretty selfish.

'I follow one every morning who doesnt cycle in the kerb' - do you mean 'in the gutter'? That's definitely not a safe place to cycle. You may need to swerve out to avoid potholes, raised drain covers and dogshits. Which if cars are trying to sneak past too close is a really bad idea. It's best to choose a line you can maintain without swerving. While ideally this won't be further from the kerb than is necessary, if this then leaves insufficient room for safe overtaking, it is probably better to take a slightly more assertive line to prevent impatient motorists from trying it.

troisgarcon 'I follow one every morning who doesnt cycle in the kerb'

As others have already pointed out there is often a reason a cyclist is not cycling in the gutter. This sort of common misconception would be put to rest if drivers actually tried driving in the gutter.
You have to swerve to avoid things like holes, pedestrians stepping out, illegally parked cars and then the drivers might think you are just swerving into the road because you are a bad cyclist!!

More understanding is needed on both sides.

riding not driving in the gutter!

I'm both a cyclist and a driver. Cyclists and drivers aren't two mutually exclusive groups. When I'm on my bike, in the morning rush hour, I'm not another car caught in the jam. I sometimes wish drivers would respect and appreciate that. So often, when traffic slows, cars deliberately drive close to the kerb edge, so it's impossible for you to get through safely.

The idea of a compulsory cycling test is a bit Orwellian, but I do think doing the motorbike CBT made me a safer cyclist as I learned a lot about safety and visibility as a two-wheeled road user that isn't really taught to cyclists.

There was a cycling proficiency course run when I was at primary school. This was very good, especially from a safety point of view.

IIRC, the aim was to give children the confidence and safety knowledge to cycle safely on the roads.

I agree drivers should all do a cycling proficiency test before getting their licence.

I wouldn't personally describe life as a commuting cyclist as unsafe, but it could be that my area has less traffic than others. Assertive riding does keep you safe but, as demonstrated by troisgarcons, can make drivers think you are being deliberately obstructive. I can think of plenty of examples where I'd give
more room to cars if i knew id get the same back.

I would love to see compulsory cycling training in schools. And much more about other road users and their requirements in the driving test.

I agree drivers should all do a cycling proficiency test before getting their licence.

I think all cyclists should do a driving test so that they know what all those funny signs and lights by the roads mean.

i just wish some cyclists would make themselves a bit more visible. we have a few round here that insist on dressing up like ninjas all in black so i dont have a hope in hell of seeing them until they're all but disappearing under my front wheels. i think ALL road users should have to pass some sort of test. only yesterday, 12 horse-drawn buggies passed through a red light at a busy intersection, causing the traffic coming the other way to brake harshly even though they had right of way, not the buggies. the buggies actually overtook 4 cars to get to the lights they went through illegally. a bloody wonder nobody was killed

thing is the car driver should be overtaking and crossing the white line - there is no reason why a car can't overtake a cyclist when the opposite side of the road is clear.

Unfortunately motorists think they have every right to overtake a cyclist and stay within the white line in the middle of the road. This type of action is very dangerous for a cyclists, one reason being that motor cars cause damage to the edges of the road near the kerb and there are often potholes or grates.

this is how you should overtake a cyclist

Totally agree on visibility Ipswich! One of the current laws I want better enforced is the requirement for lights on bikes. So many near me don't have them at night and it's bloody stupid.

I favour bright yellow reflective chic coupled with proper lights...

The idea of a compulsory cycling test is a bit Orwellian

I disagree, I think a huge part of the problem is many cyclists don't understand/ respect the rules of the road. I think the road system is an critical public asset and anyone who uses it should be judged fit to do so.

I think all cyclists should get off their bikes and walk around a red light when they come to it.

We should enforce this most strongly, especially because if you are driving you cant just pick up your car! Its not fair! waaah

WAAAAAH but its not fair!!!!

BOHOHOOO!

All cyclists should have to put petrol in their bike, because drivers have to do it!

All road users should have to carry at least 3rd party insurance, if it is mandatory for car drivers then why not cyclists too?

Cyclists can cause thousands of pounds worth of damage to a car or worse a pedestrian and there is literally nothing that can be done about it.

They can be sued in a civil court, but it is very unlikely that they would have the financial wherewithall to meet the costs of repairs/personal injuries.

Very unfair imo.

All cyclists should have to put petrol in their bike, because drivers have to do it!

All cyclists should be able to demonstarte competence on a road, and be able to afford the consequences of any actions IMO. So, licences for cyclist, some contribution to road tax, and 3rd party insurance.

And drivers should have to wear cycle helmets, not just in their cars but ALL THE TIME!

"Cyclists can cause thousands of pounds worth of damage to a car"

CakeMe - only then the cyclist is most likely to be dead. I think that's a severe enough consequence don't you?

Get cyclists off the road to make more room for cars!

Oh... No wait..

ChickenLickn Would you also argue that a car driver who causes an accident and kills themselves in the process should have no liability to repair the car that they damaged in the accident?

Should the innocent party in that circumstance shoulder the cost of repairing their own car just because the driver at fault was killed?

...and FWIW, the cyclist who couldn't be arsed to uncleat at a traffic light and instead chose to run the red light and hit my car (causing just short of £3,000 worth of damage which I had to pay for myself) was very much alive, hurling abuse and shaking his fist at me.

All road users should have to carry at least 3rd party insurance

pheasants, they should definitely carry 3rd party insurance valid after their demise.

No, seriously I think cyclists should carry 3rd party insurance. Some household insurance policies will cover this (for the family, so kids too) - I'd recommend all cyclists check theirs does.