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!

whatsthatcomingoverthehill
"No one has denied that."

TheFuzz "It's not dangerous, its the cycle hating drivers that are."

SantanaLopez 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'm beginning to think you are being deliberately obtuse. If you were a nationally ranked swimmer, you would know that by the very fact of being able to swim, you will have better developed motor skills in that act than someone who cannot swim. Exactly the same principle applies to cycling - you cannot cycle without the requisite motor skills to enable it. You are being rather patronising in assuming that a high number of cyclists are incapable of cycling "without looking where they are going" or without swerving with good reason (or even choosing tasteful clothing).

Yes, you gain more skills as you do it more often, but not everyone can be nationally ranked in their sport. I'm actually beginning to find you a little bit disingenuous, in that I think you say whatever is necessary to prove your point, whether it is likely to accurate or not, or to cover up what is, in effect, very slightly anti-social behaviour on your part.

Lets say at least, you could make at least as good a case for having a basic anti-stupidity and anti-social test for drivers, as you could for testing cyclists. Except the former would save far more lives.

ivykatty44 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

Actually, I agree. I don't see the point in very large groups, as I think they are too dangerous for crashes (not involving motorists!) and they give poor training, because you spend too much time at the back. I have ridden safely in large groups and they don't have as many accidents as you think they might, and the clubs tend to be very strict about instructing in peloton riding skills before you are "admitted" to the faster groups, as opposed to the novice groups.

I don't really think there are more than a handful of professional cyclists actually training in the UK at all- you might get some juniors who might make it one day.

However, that's not what the OP was complaining about. She was describing I think 3 or 4 cyclists holding her up when driving. According to the OP, they had an unusual and slightly hard to believe inability to see out of their own eyes, dress themselves satisfactorally and to cycle in a straight line.

you cannot cycle without the requisite motor skills to enable it.

Yes, but there is being able to cycle and there is being able to cycle on the road and engaging with a variety of different vehicles.

You are being rather shortsighted in assuming that every cyclist is completely competent all the time.

You are being rather shortsighted in assuming that every cyclist is completely competent all the time

I'm not. However one assumes that if they were so incompetent as you suggest, they would either be (a) dead (b) maimed (c) mentally incompetent. Its just not plausible. You are so rude about those cyclists that you give the assumption that the roads are populated by cyclists with severe mental difficulties.

You also seem to apply an unreasonably judgmental attitude towards cyclists, however I would say that is the job of the police.

There is only one rude, unreasonably judgmental person on this thread, and it's not me!

santana what with you swimming and running, you should def consider taking up cycling and then you could enter triathlons. They are great fun. Then you also wouldn't be annoyed any more by the club cyclists as they would be your friends . Actually, I find that a good test anyway when driving and feeling the start of road rage - I imagine that I hav just realised that the driver that is annoying me is my friend, or elderly mother, or my just-passed-her-test DD, or my boss and then behave as I would towards them (which is usually much more forgiving than my first instinct, and more reasonable). Can you do that with the cyclists in order to not be so irritated at being held up for a minute or two?

Lessmiss

It was op stating she lives on a route that is used by azature cyclist and was held up by three or four that morning

I am aware that op is vague on clothing and leaves us wondering if possibly these cycling a matures were also naturist?

But there are many many hundreds if cycling clubs around the country and many take into account motorists I wanted people on this thread to know that at committee meetings motorist are considered, safety is thought about and traffic hold ups are considered

Perhaps these cyclist were track sprinters as they learn to cycle whilst looking backwards and wear skinsuits...

ivykaty44 I am aware that op is vague on clothing and leaves us wondering if possibly these cycling a matures were also naturist?

Oh no! The mental image I have now!

I honestly don't think the OP would be happy unless cyclist were licensed, annually, registered, compulsorily insured and subject to heavy handed individual policing. She simply doesn't want them there, as she considers her own rights more important than theirs. There is no reasoning with her, no appeasing, she will only be satisfied by continual reassurance that she is right, she is more important, and by agreement that cyclists should be extremely heavily restricted.

I don't want to live in a country like that.

Which is why I would be in favour of a psychological test for motorists before any test for cyclists...

On the same ilk u need a licence etc for an electric car but why can you ride an electric bike with no tax insurance or test ????

Voiceofsomeo have you even bothered to look up the rules of electric bikes?

Just this:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2553969/Championship-racing-driver-jailed-crashing-killing-cyclist-phone-girlfriend.html#comments

...why doesn't every driver found phoning/texting whilst driving get an automatic 6 point and £1,000 penalty? Then fewer people would do it (and fewer cyclists/ pedestrians would be killed).

I see LMA is still getting as far as she can from the question. Should there be a minimum level of competence for road users, including cyclists?

PigletJohn
"Should there be a minimum level of competence for road users, including cyclists?"

I can only do low/non impact exercise since the incident that I had with a dangerous cyclist (who ran the red at a pedestrian crossing.
So even though I am not LMA I'm going to say yes.

what with you swimming and running, you should def consider taking up cycling and then you could enter triathlons. They are great fun

A lot of my friends are actually doing that. I don't have much time just now, DD is only a year old, but maybe when she gets a bit older :)

There is no reasoning with her, no appeasing, she will only be satisfied by continual reassurance that she is right, she is more important, and by agreement that cyclists should be extremely heavily restricted.

Are there any successful models in other countries that the UK could follow?

Or is everyone as grumpy as the seem to be here?

boneyback I am so sorry about your injury but I am not sure a cycle test would have helped - all cyclists know they should not jump red lights and would not do so during a test. So a competence test won't stop them doing it in RL. There could be more enforcement of red light jumping I guess but that should really start with motorists as you would have come off a darned site worse had you been hit by a car rather than a bike.

I suspect fewer cyclists would jump lights if the roads were designed better with them in mind: often they jump lights because that is safer for them and they feel in danger waiting for the main traffic flow (not an excuse, just an observation) so if you tackle that then there would be much less red light jumping.

Jumping red lights . But I've no problem with cyclists cautiously moving off just before the lights change. If done well it does me a favour because it means I notice them and they've picked up a reasonable speed by the time I get going.

PigletJohn I see LMA is still getting as far as she can from the question. Should there be a minimum level of competence for road users, including cyclists?

Mea culpa. Please do set out the terms of reference in more precise detail.

How would you enforce said level of competence (bearing in mind common law already encompasses cycling related offences?). Would people like the OP drive around, observing and pulling over less than competent or aesthetically pleasingly dressed cyclists, and give them a little lecture on their folly, make them do 40 press ups (for their motor skills) then instruct them to push their bicycle home?

And what would the results be of some requirements of competence tests? Would the UK race up the international obesity scale and actually overtake the US, while simultaneously having the lowest number of cycle journeys in Europe?

those are points which can be looked at after the main question, which is, Should there be a minimum level of competence for road users, including cyclists?

Oh right. Again, mea majoris culpa for not sticking to the specified terms of reference and participating in a wider debate, considering other relevant concerns.

Answer - no, not for cyclists and pedestrians.

Reasons - those give on the thread already. Please refer back. If you don't agree, then learn to live with that rather than ordering people around.

I haven't ordered anyone around.

So your answer to the question is no, there should not be a minimum standard of competence for road users including cyclists.

No surprise that my view is that all road users, including cyclists, should have a minimum standard of competence.

Piglet I think the debate has moved on from that. Can I ask if you yourself are particularly unskilled in terms of moving under your own propulsion outdoors? And therefore base your interpretation of what other people have said on your own lack of experience/skill?

Logically, and in neurological terms ie neural connectivity between motor cells and axions in the brain, anyone balancing on a bike and moving successfully forwards is already more competent than someone who cannot ride a bike. Therefore there is a "minimum standard of competence" involved as you put it.

We do have roads where drivers do not have to come across a mixed variety of legally entitled road users. These are called motorways.

What is it that you are actually trying to say? Could you try a little harder?

I don't think it has moved on, though a good deal of obfuscation and irrelevant smears and insults have been added for no good purpose.