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.

In my area most cyclists ride on pavements and dont give a damn about pedestrians nearly knocking my toddler over. Maybe they wouldnt be on the pavements if there was more considerate motorists - i guess i wouldnt wanna cylcle on our roads its a death trap!

"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. "

And this happens how often? If a cyclist managed to cause so much damage it would surely be very likely that the cyclist would have serious injuries.

I think all drivers would do well to remember that no matter how annoying the cyclist is, no matter how many rules of the road they're breaking, if they cause an accident with a car the car will win and it's the cyclist who will be crushed to death, not the car driver. Let's get some perspective here.

And as for accidents between cyclists and pedestrians, yes some cyclists go on pavements where they shouldn't, but there are just as many numpty pedestrians who step into the road without looking because they haven't heard a car, then nearly get hit by a bike. Oh, and they have the nerve to get cross about it .

If you cause an accident through your own reckless actions, then you are fully responsible for any injuries that you may cause yourself and indeed other people or other people's property.

Doesn't matter if you are a driver, pedestrian or cyclist, its a well established principle of law.

Its quite simple really: Don't be a dick.

Cake was that directed at me?

I'd just like drivers to remember that if they make a mistake re a cyclist, the cyclist gets flattened. If the cyclist makes a mistake, the cyclist gets flattened. It's not just about who causes the problem, it's about the wildly differing consequences for the two parties.

Perhaps we should have a strict liability law as apparently most european countries (not just the Netherlands) do.

OT, but the picture on that link takes me back... any of you old enough to have been members of the Tufty club?

I think all drivers would do well to remember that no matter how annoying the cyclist is, no matter how many rules of the road they're breaking, if they cause an accident with a car the car will win and it's the cyclist who will be crushed to death, not the car driver. Let's get some perspective here.

I wish some cyclists knew that!

I think there is a point about 3rd party insurance, although my car was severely dented by a child riding a bike in a car park. Should children have third party too? And should pedestrians just in case they walk out in front of a bike and cause major injury and damage?

I pay around £30 a year to the London Cycling Campaign to be insured. You can also do it through CTC (the cycle touring club). It's bugger all and you get legal advice etc.

Anyone who commutes by bike in London should do it.

As I said in a previous post, in Switzerland it's mandatory and you have to put proof of it (a little metal badge thing) on your bike frame. Police were checking them.

I agree that adding a section to the driving test so that car drivers have to experience the road from a cyclists point of view would be a good idea. (We might need a simulator or exemption for disabled drivers not able to ride a bike).

I recently had a learner driver under instruction from a professional driving instructor pass me at a pinch point, causing me to have to swerve and slam my brakes on. When I caught up with them at the next lights and (very politely) suggested that the manoeuvre was a bad idea, the instructor was adamant that it had been safe to pass, despite the fact that I had been forced to take evasive action, it was apparently obvious it was safe as there ha been no collision .

Regarding the 'cyclists jump red lights' accusations, any responsible cyclist will tell you that for every cyclist you see doing this, there will be two cars who pass you too close, overtake just before the end of a queue of traffic or their junction, turn across your path without indicating, expect you to give way when it is your right of way, etc etc.

And no, it is not 'Road Tax'. If it were 'Road Tax' then electric cars, low emission or alternative fuel cars, and cars made before 1973 would all have to pay it as well. They don't.

AllPastYears Yes it was directed at you, I'm not wishing to start a bunfight (am enjoying debating the point with you and have no wish to fall out over it ) but I'm quite staggered by your logic.

I'm just very surprised that you think that a cyclist, who 'makes a mistake', should somehow be let off the consequences of that mistake simply because they are a cyclist.

Kind of goes back to the OP's original point, that cyclists should me made to take test, similar to a driving test. I can't see anything 'Orwellian' about that, car drivers have to, why not cyclists?

helloclitty You make a very valid point - perhaps any 'vehicle' that can travel at above say 10mph should be insured?

Slightly off-topic, but I remember years ago, one of my friends hit a 6 year old boy who ran out in front of her car. The incident happened to be witnessed by an off duty policeman who gave a statement to my friend's insurance company stating that the little boy was 100% to blame and that my friend couldn't have avoided hitting him.

The boy was actually quite badly injured (broken bones, but made a full recovery), and the front of my friend's car was also badly damaged.

My friend's insurance company did in fact sue the boy's parents to recover their costs (the parents were v.wealthy). Very sad, but unfortunately, that is the law in the UK.

I agree that adding a section to the driving test so that car drivers have to experience the road from a cyclists point of view would be a good idea. (We might need a simulator or exemption for disabled drivers not able to ride a bike).

IMO its cyclists that need to take a driving test. Drivers are alraedy licenced for road usage.

And no, it is not 'Road Tax'. If it were 'Road Tax' then electric cars, low emission or alternative fuel cars, and cars made before 1973 would all have to pay it as well. They don't.

Try not paying it with the other 99% of cars and see what happens. You specifically cannot put your car in the road without it. Of course its a road tax.

Whatmeworry - that makes no sense at all. There are certain modes of transport, electrical cars and bicycles amongst them, for which you do not have to pay a charge to take them on the road. For other vehicles, you do. It is not difficult to understand that it is the vehicle being taxed, not the road use. You don't have to pay any sort of Tax or Duty to be a passenger in someone's car, even if you do just as much travelling and use the road just as much as the driver/owner of the vehicle does.

Also, why should obtaining a licence to drive not include instruction/testing on how to drive in the safest and most considerate way for other common road users?

Is it just me that had to do cycling proficiency at school?

Driver and daily cyclist here.

Always alaways amuses me when drivers complain about cyclists going through red lights. After some pondering and discussion, I can only think it's pure jealousy. I mean, how exactly is a cyclist riding through a red light affecting your journey as a driver at all?? If it suits me, i.e. going up hill to lights, I go through them - no harm to me or anyone else. And before anyone bleats "but it's in the highway code and illegal" so is speeeding and cutting cyclists up that they are daily occurences.

thistledew mine did. The highway code advises as well as your driving instructor if you get a good one.

Always alaways amuses me when drivers complain about cyclists going through red lights. After some pondering and discussion, I can only think it's pure jealousy. I mean, how exactly is a cyclist riding through a red light affecting your journey as a driver at all??

Priceless. Says it all.

Whatmeworry - thank you. And thanks forothe editing out of the speeding thing. Priceless. Says most oit.

OP - the idea of having a common experience with the 'other' mode of transport is pretty impractical, and unfortunately would not change the attitudes of quite a few drivers who are fairly careless about he lives and limbs of cyclists.

Thefresh It probably wouldn't change the attitude of quite a few cyclists who are fairly careless about the lives and limbs of drivers either.

"It probably wouldn't change the attitude of quite a few cyclists who are fairly careless about the lives and limbs of drivers either."

You're kidding me!!??

You're not kidding??

thefresh

Kind of... the main reason for posting was because this thread has been a bit driver bashing, when there are crap versions of both cyclists and drivers.

Cyclists riding badly are perfectly capable of causing a nasty accident for a car driver, just as cars can be fecking eejits in relation to cyclists.

Agreed.

The unfortunate thing is that if a driver causes an accident in their car, they have to pay for the damage the cause.

If a cyclist causes as accident, the driver will have to pick up that tab too.

How is that fair?

Also, the case of 'cyclist hitting car' is by no means the only type of accident that bikes can cause. Accidents involving bikes quite often involve a driver having to take evasive action to avoid a twattish cyclist and hitting other cars/people etc.

Thefresh - I'll tell you how cyclists, or anyone running red lights affects me. They can kill themselves or me, or my child, should I be
a) crossing the road with my baby daughter
b) cycling across the junction on my pushbike or
c) riding across it on my motorbike.

I've been a cyclist for more than 20 years, half of which were in London. I won't say I've always been perfect, but... that properly bugs me.

Cake: "I'm just very surprised that you think that a cyclist, who 'makes a mistake', should somehow be let off the consequences of that mistake simply because they are a cyclist.

I didn't say any such thing! I said that drivers get het up because their journey might be delayed or their car might get damaged, but cyclists get het up because they might be killed. I don't see how you extrapolate from this to me saying that cyclists should be let off for their behaviour.

(Actually, some cyclists don't seem to get het up about being killed - these I think are the ones wearing black at dusk, no lights, no helmet, no hi-viz, pulling out in front of my car without signalling or looking over their shoulder... no-one with a sense of self-preservation would do these things.)