to think cyclists ought to sit a test before being allowed on the road?

[SantanaLopez]

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!

and yes that 'poor' really should be pour..

Haven't read all of this... but wanted to tell about a recent experience.

In my area, there are a lot of large groups of cyclists (usually 20+, sometimes many more) who often ride as many as 5/6/7 abreast, usually with one in hi-vis on the outside (sometimes so far out he's into the next lane), acting like a shepherd. Not sure if this is illegal, or if it's a requirement for visibility or security or guidance of the group... probably some combination of the above. Anyway it can be a real pain waiting to get past them safely and you frequently end up with a massive queue of cars behind them. It's quite hilly so not a lot of places to pass safely. Whilst in these queues, I've seen some really dangerous overtakes that have made me want to duck and I'm in a car, so the cyclists must have been in sudden need of clean lycra!

So that being my normal experience of cyclists, I was a bit annoyed and anticipating a few miles of 15mph in a 60 limit when I recently came up behind a smaller group (6/7) who were riding 3 abreast. However, the rear rider suddenly surged ahead of the group and they all instantly dropped into single file. A couple of them (including the rear rider, now at the front) waved as I went past (giving plenty of room, as there now was plenty of room) and I waved back. They then went back into their 3-abreast formation. It was a great example of common courtesy (and perhaps good practice for other cyclists?) on the roads.

I think the only negative thing about this is how shocked I was at the courtesy of the riders. Should be commonplace for both riders and drivers

yes Orlea, we generally are a polite and accommodating bunch of road users. The mealy-mouthed rubbish that is oft posted round these parts is just that. And it's good to hear of nice comments.
Cyclists shouldn't really be riding more than two a breast. Having said that it's remarkable how stories get stretched by drivers to exaggerate the effect of riders 'holding up' traffic. "It was a 16 mile tail back!". No. It was momentarily inconvenient, and your fellow drivers are almost the sole culprits for hold ups. And btw, you are also 'traffic' holding other people up.

1754 people were killed by cars in the UK in 2012 (latest figures I could find)
.

Most years, either 1 or no pedestrian is killed by a cyclist

Cyclists are not the danger.

Even on the pavements you are over a hundred times more likely to be killed by a car:

Using DFT figures, from 2007-2008, 60.7 pedestrians were killed on the pavement by motor-vehicles, whereas 0.5 were killed on the pavement, by pavement cyclists (ie one pedestrian in those 2 years).

In answer to the OP, no, there should not be a compulsory test for cyclists. Instead, there should be a compulsory element in the driving test for understanding cyclists and their issues eg their need to veer to avoid potholes, knowledge that they can't physically signal when braking 9not enough hands) and so you need to read their road position instead, to know that large groups of cyclists are ENCOURAGED to ride in formation so that they form the equivalent of a slow HGV and are easier to overtake than a long string of cyclists.

Pan This is tricky. I like PJ and respect LMA's commitment to biking. But LMA you do seem t obe making swingeing assumptions about non-cyclists in general, which doesn't reflect well on cyclist's attitudes at all, nor reflect mine or other bikists' views I'm afraid

However, they are my opinions, and I am entitled to hold them. I did think about putting on an all sweetness and light holier than thou act, but it would be dishonest because it wouldn't really reflect what I'm feeling when I read those awful comments from drivers about cyclists, and I wanted those people to know that while they are thinking superior thoughts about cyclists behind the wheels of their vehicles, there are other people out there who don't necessarily have such a great impression of them.

I don't cycle commute; since I started running more seriously in place of triathlon, I drive far more than cycle. But I still feel this way - also as a driver, I think impatient drivers who get worked up about expected hold ups on the roads endanger everyone - I don't want one of them overtaking dangerously and colliding head on with me in my car, never mind hitting me when I'm cycling!

The OP attacks everything about a group of frequent road users in her local vicinity, from their choice of dress to their inability to look where they are going - which in a human being, unless they are blind, must be virtually impossible. I thought it was an appalling post. Why it wouldn't occur to a driver that a cyclist might swerve to avoid a pothole or similar road hazard, I don't know, but I have to say it is an argument for more driver education if the education of riding a bike wasn't put in place before the driving test is sat.

Haven't read while thread, but what I've got through is symptomatic of the British hatred of bikes and cyclists for me. Which has always perplexed and annoyed me. You have hit a more sensitive spot than you expected.

It is not cyclists that cause 99% of problems on the road! it is cars. And of course cycles are clean, green, and, often neglected, ...quiet. And just imagine a country laid out to transport bikes around, not cars - the amount more land available currently under cement for car parks and roads.... Sigh.

Perhaps cyclists, cars and pedestrians should all be charged according to the amount of environmental, health and road damage they cause - so pedestrians and cyclists would be about even, while cars would be charged ten, twenty times the amount they are now...

Yes, pedestrians! Why not? It's as rational as to suggest cyclists should be licensed and charged! I've experienced a lot more trouble and abuse from pedestrians than I have cyclists! Perhaps all pedestrians therefore should be licensed before they're allowed out - would be a good way of getting all those teenage asbo's off the streets!

And never mind licensing cars, just put the red flag back in front of them, the way it was in an age that knew a killer when it saw it.

Thank you, prof plum for the figures, the hatred of cyclists on paths, even wide paths for 100 yards near a lethal road junction, has always particularly pissed me off.

You lot want to go to the Netherlands and see ( and smell and hear ) what a country can be like when bikes are preferred.

"It is not cyclists that cause 99% of problems on the road"

It's not motorists either, and as cyclists increase they will cause more and more of the problems (especially as they are less likely to know the Code, by definition).

The endgame is fairly clear, every road user will need to be licensed and insured.

ProfPlumSpeaking

"Cyclists are not the danger."

from the figures up thread cyclists cause a 5th of the accidents, so some are a danger.

Some are a danger to themselves,

Just because you are less likely to die from an incident with a cyclist doesn't mean that they are not a danger.

Sorry for the repetition.

"You lot want to go to the Netherlands and see ( and smell and hear ) what a country can be like when bikes are preferred"

They have an entire dedicated road network for cycles in busy urban areas, if the UK had that most problems would go away as you wouldnt have 2 totally different transport systems on the same road network.

I often ride in a large group.

We double up to take the space of a larger vehicle.
If we cycle in single file some motorists attempt to overtake and then swerve in close and break up the group.

If, by doing so, you are preventing drivers from overtaking for long periods where they could otherwise do so safely, you need to consider splitting into two smaller packs anyway. Then there would be no need for anyone to drop in and split the group in order to overtake without hitting oncoming vehicles.

It isn't OK for them to use the bulk of their vehicle to push cyclists around but you don't have a God given right to inconvenience other road users so that you can ride with your mates.

So is it OK for drivers to overtake packs in the same way they would a car without leaving a six foot space to allow for the cyclist to wobble/fall without going under their wheels? If they wish to take the space of a larger vehicle by cycling abreast they can't also expect to be given this extra clearance can they?

Why do drivers and cyclists need to always treat the other as the enemy? Why take such pleasure in making it harder for each other? More tolerance on both sides would surely make cycling safer.

Sorry not to have read the whole thread but every day without fail I see cyclists (some, not all of course) taking massive risks on the road, cycling without helmets, listening to music/headphones, unlit cycles and dark clothing, cycling one on inside and one on outside of my car at same time, all sorts. If I didn't have to drive I wouldn't, as I'm petrified of harming one and of the vitriol directed at motorists. So YANBU cyclists need to take more responsibility, should wear helmets/high viz clothes and follow highway code, no headphones, preferably not smoking while cycling which I've also seen a number of times

Goldmandra I think you misunderstand - the cyclists cycle as a pack because that is easier for vehicles to overtake safely (ie without killing anyone) than if they were strung out on the road.

Boneyback yes, many cyclists are indeed a danger to themselves. That doesn't concern me as much as the drivers who are a danger to my children and my friends and to me, whether a pedestrian or a cyclist. A lot of rock climbers and skiers are also a danger to themselves. Again, not much my concern.

Where do you get figures showing that cyclists are responsible for 1/5 of all road accidents? It is difficult to believe (unless you mean they are responsible for 1/5 of bike/car collisions which leaves motorists responsible for rather more than that and still walking away uninjured in such accidents much more often than the cyclist). Is there a single recorded incident of a cyclist killing a motorist (or even seriously injuring them)? Let me know if you can find a case. About 100 cyclists a year in the UK are killed by drivers. It's awful. That is the heartbreak and the problem that needs to be addressed - not motorists being held up for a few minutes occasionally.

As a pedestrian, I repeat, even on the pavement you are over 100 times more likely to be killed by a car than a bicycle.

Loads of people get knocked down by cyclists in urban areas -they cycle through red lights at pedestrian crossings as well I see it all the time and saw a man a fortnight ago with a broken wrist from being knocked down by a cyclist. I worry about my dcs being hit by a cyclist because of the speed they go and lack of consideration for pedestrians (not all cyclists, obviously)

Goldmandra I think you misunderstand - the cyclists cycle as a pack because that is easier for vehicles to overtake safely (ie without killing anyone) than if they were strung out on the road.

I don't misunderstand at all.

If they are cycling in a pack and therefore some are closer to the centre of the road, can they also expect a large amount of clearance as drivers are told they should? If so there isn't room to overtake packs on the roads where I live. Therefore packs of cyclists effectively block roads for long distances, winding up other road users, or get angry when they are overtaken without the customary six foot gap.

Which is the preferred option? Ride in single file without hugging the kerb so drivers can give them additional room as they pass or ride in packs but have overtaking cars leave less clearance?

There is no reason for cyclists to be strung out along roads for long distances if they don't insist on riding in such large packs in the first place. Why not just be considerate and split into smaller groups?

Goldmandra My oldest DD recently trained as a National Cycling Instructor and this is what she was taught...ride in packs. I doubt that means that they don't expect proper clearance though - same as you would give an HGV or tractor when overtaking. If there is not enough width in the road to overtake leaving a safe clearance, then you should not be overtaking at all at that place (same as if it were an HGV you were overtaking). If cyclists string out then there is the temptation for a driver to begin overtaking but underestimate how long it will take to go past all the cyclists and end up having to pull in to avoid an oncoming vehicle and, in doing so, kill a cyclist.

SleepPleaseSleep Haven't read while thread, but what I've got through is symptomatic of the British hatred of bikes and cyclists for me. Which has always perplexed and annoyed me. You have hit a more sensitive spot than you expected

This is it for me as well. My mother is Dutch, I lived there for a long time, and I've just come back from a stint working in Belgium. It really is like an alien planet back here. Not just with regards to cycling, but to the lack of foresight with the way the whole transport infrastructure is laid out. People talk of tax, but what are they spending their taxes on to produce such a poor result? And the condition of the people...you are not telling me that its not related to their attitudes towards car use and cycling. I have never come across such mass hatred of cyclists before. Its not something which makes the UK a better place to live, certainly, and I don't think that making it more difficult to cycle will do anything to improve it. Quite the opposite.

To be fair, I'm hoping DH and I will move to Holland or Belgium next year, because I prefer a country with a better standard of living, including things like basic infrastructure, and a better attitude towards fitness and health.

So I'm afraid Pan that the way I come across is probably because I don't think like a Brit on this one. But that's not a problem for me - as long as I manage to escape intact and alive first!

ProfPlumSpeaking

the numbers are from the thread that this one spawned.

As for whether you are at more risk from a car or cyclist, I am not disputing your argument. I am disputing your point that some cyclists are not dangerous. Dangerous does not equal killed, a cyclist on the pavement that pushes a pedestrian in to the road is dangerous as is one that comes out of a give way or stop line junction without looking straight in to traffic and causes a car to break heavily or swerve.

The whole point is for the car to wait until the road is clear in opposite direction so they can overtake properly and not squeeze the cyclist off the road.

You'd go a lot of miles before reaching a stretch that wide round here. The roads are wide enough to have white lines down the middle so wide enough to overtake a single cyclist but two, giving plenty of clearance, when the second one is right against the centre line.

I have no problem overtaking other cars but you aren't requested to give them a good six foot berth. Really wide tractors, you have to sit behind but they aren't choosing to make themselves that wide and they generally try to stop to let cars pass every now and then.

Cyclists could show consideration for other road users by recognising when they are holding drivers up where it would be perfectly safe to overtake one cyclist while staying well on the other side of the road and giving them plenty of clearance but not two abreast.

I do agree that drivers should wait until the road is clear on the other side before overtaking.

As for packs, I don't actually think large packs are that safe. Small packs of maybe up to 10, maybe less are better. And single file when on busy narrow roads, double file when on dual carriageways (ones which allow cyclists!) or particularly quite wide roads. I think smaller packs give better training of the same kind, as it means more time sitting in front rather than at the back doing nothing. In Holland, I often saw small packs of up to 6 out, often accompanied by a motorcycle! But there are a lot of very quiet roads and not necessarily cycle paths but just no cars.

The other thing they don't do here is that they don't close roads for races. Its a shame, because a lot of local villages and towns all over Europe will have a few local cycle races, triathlons, etc and the part of the roads network will be closed down and so many people come out to watch and cheer. But here its a different ethos altogether.

But packs of 10 or more must be quite rare? Perhaps they are doing it for safety because it makes drivers overtake more carefully? The OP doesn't mention the number of cyclists, but I don't think 4 or 5 friends riding together on a Sunday morning should be a terrible problem for the average skilled driver.

It's not the cars that are the problem.

In 17 years of commuting in London NO CAR had ever come close to hitting me.

Cyclists however. .. They are a fucking nightmare on the road. They ignore the rules left right and centre, they show zero consideration for anyone else in the road. They are a law unto themselves and their 'defence' is that is someone else's responsibility. It's pathetic.

I never understand this 'logic' . Well.. Yes I know is dangerous but that's okay. . Let's not fix it, but if I get knocked over and die it is someone else's fault. ah well that makes it alright then.

personally I would prefer to prevent deaths instead of spending my time finding a scapegoat.

Lazyjaney, while Netherlands do have some separate dedicated cycling paths, they do actually have a dual transport system in urban areas. You might not have noticed, because on a typical '2 lane wide' road, the thin bit n the middle is the bit for cars. The big two lanes on either side are for cyclists. The central bit is often empty or nearly so which makes them easy to miss.

Also cars that hit cyclists are automatically assumed the guilty party and prosecuted as such, not the other way round, making them careful and courteous drivers.

And guess what, most of all: this system did not materialise out of thin air. They built it!

Sigh... Wish we could afford to move there. Cyclists paradise.

I reckon if you put a camera on any urban traffic light you'd see 100+ cyclists shooting the red light for every car.