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.

As a cyclists and driver I would say cyclists should NOT go through red lights. They are red for a reason!
When I cycle I adhere to the same highway code as driving.

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.

This is a false statement, as a cyclist can cause an accident with a car and be left untouched - ie if a car has had to take evasive action and hit a lamp post for example, avoiding the cyclist entirely.

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

If that was actually the case, why would cycling organisations bother to offer insurance policies?

Surely the correct procedure is to get their details, find out if they have cyclists insurance or a home policy which covers such accidents, and pass this to your insurers to persue. Even in countries with 'strict liability', the motorist isn't liable if there's proof it was the cyclist's fault.

One thing I don't understand is the resistance to any sort of initiative that would make the roads safer for cyclists. IME most drivers do take care to ensure that they drive safely around cyclists. There are a significant number who think they are driving safely when they are not, or are just careless, but wouldn't deliberately drive in a way that is dangerous to cyclists. There are also a minority who do deliberately use their vehicle to threaten the safety of cyclists they encounter.

What I don't understand is the drivers who like to consider themselves as coming into the first category, but are not prepared to undertake any effort at all to either ensure they don't come into the second category, or to reduce the numbers of people who do.

There really does seem to be a 'them and us' culture where both cyclists and drivers do not really see the person using the alternative form of transport as a real human being.

MsF1T - well stop letting it bug you! I ride through a red light farily regularly - nice and safely and not stopping on a hill to start again is a real help.
Obv suicide jockeys who ride through ligthts on busy junctions are asking for it, but drivers still get themsleves all worked up over any cyclist going through any red light at all.

GrimmatheGnome Sorry that wasn't very clear. The point I was trying to make is that, although the cyclist is liable for the damage they cause in the legal sense, the fact that they are not required to carry insurance means that there is noone to sue in the event of an accident.

To give a (fairly extreme) example, lets say a cyclist knocks over a sportsperson, causing them injuries that end their career. It is very unlikely that the cyclist personally has the required £millions to adequately compensate that person, so there would be no point in suing them in a civil court.

If I were to hit that same (unlucky!) sportsperson in my car and end their career, my motor insurance will compensate them up to £2.5million for their personal injuries.

To give a more everyday example, the dickhead who crashed into my car refused to even give me his details (I don't think he was even required to by law), so I couldn't sue him even if I wanted to. Bikes don't have to be licensed, so no numberplate with which to track him down either.

Nope. I think all car drivers should be forced to cycle for a week every year and vice versa.

Cake, I think refusing to give details at the scene is a criminal offence. Did you ring the police?

I asked a simialr question the other day without a good answer. The law on road accidents appear to be largely designed to account for motor vehicles and not pedal powerers. So if a car hits me and damages my bike, what expectations and legal redress do I have? Not really sure.

I am surprised that so few drivers think that they wouldn't benefit from actually cycling for a week or so.

To those that have said this why do you not think you would benefit from seeing it from the other side?

minieggs I think that is a sweeping statement, I cycle every day and I never run red lights, principally as I am adverse to the idea of dying. The minority of cyclists who do this get on my tits too.

I can give you countless examples of getting cut up, forced into curbs, motorists ignoring my right of way as it is only a cyclist, along with cars running red or amber lights, but I wouldn't extrapolate that to all motorists.

you dont get a lot of redress when a car hits you. Mine was damaged by an ininsured driver who had 32 counts of driving offences against him. It never even made it too court. he is still driving around with no licence, insurance etc
Personally if you comit a driving crime I'd crush the car into a little cube.

from a danger point of view they probably would benefit - to know what it feels like to have a car whisk by your leg at 40mph, or hear that constant refrain "sorry, didn't see you there mate" (though I am in a highviz jacket, about 6 foot and have lights on the bike. At lunch time), or to have to keep checking to one's left at junctions when you want to go straight on.Being a bikist can be a risky, wet business which 'cagers' just don't experience.

I think it would be great for all drivers who can to spend a day on a bike - this is an important part of HGV driver training which some responsible haulage firms, councils etc are sending their drivers on in an effort to reduce the number of cyclist deaths.
I am a driver and a cyclist, and always treat cyclists with respect on the road and give them room - some obviously haven't got a clue what they are doing, but at least they are making an effort!

or checking on your right hand side even! as you don't wish to be clobbered by a driver who is turning left and assumes you are too. (twice I have had this - cunts.)

Try drivers turning left while reading a map, thefreshegg. Happened to be on a busy road in London...

me. Happened to me*. Durhhhh.

Do you HGV drivers already do this? Fantastic!

London roads are not designed for cyclists in my opinion. Never the twain should meet.

MissFaversham

Why do you say London roads are not 'designed' for cyclists? Are you implying that that were built for cars? Really?

London Roads were built for horses and then cycles and LASTLY cars!

Isn't it more of a "they were designed badly without cyclists in mind" style comment?

I was always taught to pass cyclists with 6ft of space - height of bike plus space for them to "bounce and sprawl" if they came off as you were passing. This is totally impossible on many many roads, rural and city, so instead you need to pass slow and give as much room as possible. I cycle and I drive, and all you can do is take responsibility for keeping yourself AND OTHER ROAD USERS as safe as possible.

If all the cyclists got into cars what do you think the outcome would be?

In 2006 there were 3.1million journeys made by bike every week in London what do you think would happen if all these people took to their cars, which many have but choose to leave at home.

The roads are badly designed for cyclists and motorists to be together on roads. Isn't that what miss faversham is getting at? That's the way I took it.

I know where i live, NOT in the wonderful London, it's too dangerous to cycle as there are no decent cycle paths or lanes on the routes I need to use, which involve 60mph roads.