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!

I can only tell you what I have witnessed on this particular stretch of road.

Asking for 'evidence' is being deliberately obtuse, anyway. There aren't statistics collected about how often someone doesn't wear bright clothing, doesn't give another vehicle enough room to pass and so on.

some of these noncyclist-haters seem to be making up their own "facts" and even deciding who, in their imagination, is a noncyclist.

You are arguing that a 'significant minority' of cyclists are dangerous. Dangerous means "able or likely to cause harm or injury". If there are so many cyclists being dangerous that would be corroborated by statistics for deaths, injuries etc caused by cyclists.

Otherwise it is simply an "I'm right, you're wrong" argument, which doesn't really get anyone anywhere.

Because I like to know what I'm talking about before spouting off, I've looked into it. So I can tell you that between 2008 and 2012 there were two pedestrians killed by cyclists on the pavement, as opposed to about 200 pedestrians killed by cars on pavements. Over the same period altogether there were 9 pedestrians killed in collisions with bicycles, though it does not make clear who was at fault. Other research has found that of pedestrian-cycle collisions, 60% of the time it was the pedestrians fault.

Yes, cyclists can kill and cause injury, but the numbers are so much less than those caused by cars. Focusing attention on schemes to regulate cycling is misplaced when far more could be achieved in terms of preventing injuries and deaths by regulating driving more.

Lessmissabbs but the cycling groups are popular and also big enough to accept that they need to take into account motorist

I wanted to highlight to some on this thread that ameture cyclists (though how you can tell they are amature or proff) want to be thoughtful and make changes to their club at committee meetings to protect and assist

thedog sorry, I have been out all day which I why I had not answered.

Thank you. You have given two examples of where cyclists have been injured by other cyclists. One was a story you read about in the newspaper and one was a friend. Now, to balance the equation, how many people do you know about (or have read about in the paper) who have been injured or killed by cars? You have widened the scope from friends of friends with newspaper stories so can now have a quite a few to draw on (not that pedestrians being killed by cars get as much publicity as pedestrians killed by bikes as one of those happens several times a day, and the other happens only once every 2 years so there is a bias in terms of newsworthiness).

Then compare your figures. Anyone can do it. I will bet there is not a single person who knows (or knows of) more people who have been injured by bikes than by vehicles. Not even on the same scale of magnitude.

Actually, the OED defines dangerous as
1.i) Difficult or awkward to deal with

1. ii) Difficult to please
2. iii) Reluctant to give, accede or comply

1. i) Fraught with danger or risk; causing or occasioning danger; perilous, hazardous, risky, unsafe

You seem to be arguing that because there's no figures, there's no problem. I am not saying that cyclists are the sole cause of all driving-cyclists related incidents. As I said in my first post- safety goes both ways.

Drivers currently have tests and lessons to increase safety.

Cyclists have nothing.

What have cyclists got to fear from more training?

whatsthatcomingoverthehill
"You are arguing that a 'significant minority' of cyclists are dangerous. Dangerous means "able or likely to cause harm or injury". If there are so many cyclists being dangerous that would be corroborated by statistics for deaths, injuries etc caused by cyclists."

There are no stats because people are able to avoid the cyclist, it doesn't mean that they are not a danger, just that others are able to get out of their way.

santana what do you want to teach the cyclists on their courses? If you are to teach them proper cycling then you will be teaching them not to hand signal where it removes control from brakes and steering - instead they should rely on raod positioning as a clue for the motorists, to take the road (much safer) and to ride in packs when in a group (easier for traffic to overtake). Seeing the trained cyclists all doing this will just enrage ignorant drivers even more because often they think that these things are wrong. It is the drivers who need more education in general.

PS Why do drivers care so much whether or not cyclists wear helmets? Unless you advocate wearing a driving helmet (they exist and are effective unlike cycle helmets as driving helmets can have proper heavy hard protective shells like motorbike helmets) and/or pedestrian helmets then you are guilty of sloppy thinking. Both of those helmets being compulsory would save ten times more lives than cycle helmets. But it won't happen. Most people (rightly) think that personal safety should be left to individual judgement, unlike actions that affect the safety of those around you.

OP. You've cited the OED.

That's it. It's over. It's the equivalent of Godwin's Law

You are being ridiculous. I'm not even a cyclist. Or a driver much any more.

I'm a pedestrian. Possibly the lowest form of human life who looks both ways and doesn't amble along or stop dead at the top of escalators or stand on the left on the Tube and is still at the mercy of people like you whether they're in cars, on bikes, scooters, skates, with wheely suitcases or phones or just mooning about looking in shop windows or the sky who think they're better than me because they never make mistakes. Ever.

We all do. I try not to but I do too.

Some of us admit it. Do you know what? I even let an old lady push in front of me in Sainsbury's today.

She had quite a bit of shopping. I just had a loaf of bread.

It was deliberate. But do you know what? She's going to die soon and I'm probably not. And if it makes her happy to get one over on me...

From a public health point of view yabu as the health benefits of cycling far far far outweigh the risks and this has been established through research in the British medical journal ( but no, I don't have the link, sorry)

Heh? Someone tried to define 'dangerous', I proved them wrong. Of course I make mistakes as a driver! But I make far less because I had lessons and demonstrated I was capable of passing a test.

I'm not sure about the health angle. I think a lot of people would be more likely to take it up if they could be taught more about it and

santana what do you want to teach the cyclists on their courses? If you are to teach them proper cycling then you will be teaching them not to hand signal where it removes control from brakes and steering - instead they should rely on raod positioning as a clue for the motorists, to take the road (much safer) and to ride in packs when in a group (easier for traffic to overtake). Seeing the trained cyclists all doing this will just enrage ignorant drivers even more because often they think that these things are wrong. It is the drivers who need more education in general.

Yes, I suppose things like that. I realise that you're arguing that the driving test should cover it instead, but a lot of people on this thread have said that cycling and driving are completely different experiences.

News just in! Today I had two drivers move out off the kerb as I approached them from behind. Both in the dark and prob as result of seeing my flashing light in their rear views. I waved a thank you to each as I glided gracefully by. Just thought I'd mention it.

Santana, I assumed you were taking the second type of meaning, which is pretty much what I said. And no, I'm not saying there are no figures, the opposite in fact! I am arguing that a lot of people doing something risky will be backed up by the statistics. You can very easily find out how many people have been killed or injured in accidents involving bicycles. I work in construction, where there are very rigorous safety procedures, and they focus on the ones that carry the most risk. They can quantify it very well because they know exactly how many people are killed/injured doing certain activities. Same with cycling. You might see a few cyclists jumping red lights and think "Ooo that's dangerous", but you are not quantifying that risk in any way. Without quantification it is meaningless.

We have already seen in this thread that people 'feel' much more threatened by bikes on pavements, yet you are a hundred times more likely to be killed by a car on a pavement than a bike. Feelings really don't count for much and can be very misleading over actual risk.

I will give you one thing, that training should always be available to cyclists if they want it. Bringing in compulsory regulation against cycling will result in fewer people cycling, which in turn will further alienate cyclists from drivers, and make cycling a riskier business. It would make a much bigger difference towards safety if there was extended training for drivers on how to deal with cyclists, so they understand why they might do certain things.

Santana I can only tell you what I have witnessed on this particular stretch of road

Your OP states that you witnessed the following:

• 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

I think theres rather a lot of hyperbole in there and not too much evidence. Why on earth would you assume grown adults "don't look where they are going"? Who are you to tell other people how to dress? Are you familiar with the avoidance of potholes, or do you prefer the cycling into them and crashing method? Why would cyclists be required to signal when you are overtaking them? Where is the "absolute havoc"?

What on earth were you doing on a Sunday morning that was so essential that you got so worked up about other road users exercising their right to be there?

Santana Drivers currently have tests and lessons to increase safety. Cyclists have nothing. What have cyclists got to fear from more training?

You must surely be aware that vehicles require licenses and compulsory training to drive because they tend to weigh quite a lot, be made of metal and large numbers of people are killed and injured by them every year?

Putting the onus on cyclists to take even more action to avoid dangerous and negligent drivers sets a dangerous precedent. It is also likely to deter occasional users, such as the person who wants to nip out to the shops for their paper on their bike. Or take an occasional Sunday ride. I think that's a shame, and I think the car is king attitude belongs in the past. We need to get people out of their cars and using bikes more, not putting obstacles in their way.

What you also develop as a cyclist is good motor skills. By motor skills, I mean the neural connections between your brain and your muscles controlling balance, reactions and so on become more efficient. So cyclists are already "trained" - simply by riding a bike reasonably regularly you improve your brain's functionality, as well as your own cardiovascular system.

Putting the onus on cyclists to have a limited but measured amount of competence does not set a dangerous precedent, because it is what we expect of other road users.

This does not include self-defined and self-measured competence.

pigletjohn Pedestrians are road users. There is no test for them.

There is in any case a de facto massive onus on cyclists to be competent as, if they are not, they are likely to be seriously injured or killed. You don't need to add much to that level of enforcement and punishment for being incompetent.

Car drivers need to be tested as their mistakes kill and injure OTHER people. Also, unlike pedestrians and cyclists, have no automatic right to the roads: they are there only under licence. Sadly that does not seem to deter all of them from texting whilst driving, drink driving or speeding hence the need for external enforcement of sensible competence.

There are idiots out there, be it on foot, in a car, on a bike, in a truck.

Certain ones being idiots can kill others very easily !

There is a saying 'share the roads' it applies to everyone. Too many people in a rush, trying to get to the back of the next queue before everyone else.

Driver and cyclist here (club level cyclist). I have to take evasive action every single time I ride my cycle, because one person acts like an idiot. Just last week I was left hooked on a roundabout by an idiot doing about 50 mph deciding he wanted to beat everyone round the rounabout. I was matching traffic speed, in the correct lane. Not much fun when you see a bonnet whizz past under your elbow, followed by the car cracking your hand as you struggle to hold onto the handlebars !

Far too much agression out there. Chill, you aren't going to get anywhere fast in a vehicle !

I just can't that worked up when I'm driving to criticise other people's clothes and so on. Life's too short. What does it matter if you're held up slightly on a Sunday by someone out on a bike in the fresh(ish) air?

When I'm cycling, I'm always on the lookout trying not to be killed or horribly maimed.

TheFuzz you were lucky - that happened to my DH - the wing mirror broke his wrist. (driver stopped, not charged, got a couple of thousand from it in a civil claim, but more glad it wasn't his head).

And OP, that's me and my DH's clothing choice you're criticising too (how rude!) - I don't think we look too bad, at least we're in good shape. Can you say the same or are you some kind of supermodel who can advise on others' clothing meaningfully?

I've had worse. Spent 4 years and many thousands of pounds in physio, as well as surgery and many many hospital visits getting a shoulder fixed, after a driver couldn't be bothered to look and slow down.

Spoke to a guy at the weekend who had two shoulders smashed and his hip in a similar incident.

So all you cycle hating people, please actually try cycling before spouting your crap. It's not dangerous, its the cycle hating drivers that are.

You are just jealous. Whilst we are keeping fit, hopefully not becoming a burdon on our families and the NHS in a later life, just think. We are also not holding you up.

If I drove to work, it would take me an hour to do 6 miles. I ride 2-3 times that distance to work, same roads (with detours) in the same time ! Who is the one holding up traffic ?

I don't come on here accusing all drivers being terrible people, but it seems OK for some drivers to tar all cyclists with the same brush.

Those calling for tests, if you had to take a test to cycle, would you actually bother ? Most wouldn't think about cycling, and not even do it. Studys show, making helmets compulsory would stop people riding (PS I wear one as I've had first hand of my helmet scraping the ground heavily after being hit by a car).

It's good for you, try it !

Santanalopez, whilst you are sitting there drinking tea and cake, us cyclists also like tea and cake, but we've burnt of a few thousand calories before eating it !!!

What's 'not dressed properly' Were they naked ?

Cycling in Jeans is not dressed properly - poor nether regions !

Oh, and don't get me started on folk whe need a 4x4 who live in the city/urban areas - why ?

Had a wankpanzer try to cut me up this morning, cycling about 25 mph towards a traffic queue, he/she charges past me and starts to pull over to where I was cycling, I didn't move and the driver had abandon trying to squash me and join the queue behind me ! I waited in the queue like I was supposed to !

We don't learn re transport policy do we? I had to drive to an office this morning which for me is inaccessible by bike (too many dual carriageways and v large roundabouts) and the vast vast majority of cars were single occupants. In long queues. Its a largish town with trams, buses and trains running to it.

TheFuzz - I posted aages ago a list of car types most dangerous to bikists on the road. I'd soon realised though that I was mistaken. We need to be cautious about ALL drivers who we share the roads with. (small lorries and 4X4s are still in their own super group though.)

What you also develop as a cyclist is good motor skills

But you need to develop these. You don't just gain them the minute you decide to cycle to work.

I have already explained that I cannot see many of the cyclists in the early mornings, because it's still so dark up here. I don't care what they look like, I just want to be able to see them!

I have also already explained that I know these roads very well. There are no potholes. It was recently retarred. They're lovely and smooth. Nothing to avoid.

Many cyclists don't seem to indicate or look behind them before moving. I am not a mindreader.

I am not jealous I am not rushing. I just want to drive safely.

I find those that complain about cyclists are usually the type that's not done any sport, or at best 'safe things' and anything more than a trip to the gym is 'dangerous'.

Even after recovering from surgery I am itching to get back cycling. Sitting in traffic for over an hour to do 6 miles is soul destroying. I usually last a few days once fit for work, before jumping on the bike. No wonder so many folk are all angry like the OP.

Each additional cyclist you see on the road, is one less car in front of you. If we all got back in our cars (PS most cyclists own cars and usually leave it on the driveway), there would be trouble.