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 don't think you are accurate PigletJohn. That is simply your take on it. I do think there have been quite a lot of blatantly abusive comments aimed at cyclists for very little reason though.

What you appear to be arguing for is a change in the law. So why not say that, rather than making sweeping claims that are so general it is impossible to work out what you are trying to say at all?

I don't think that will happen because most developed countries are trying to encourage alternative transport to cars and your embellished requirement would do the opposite, and be a step backwards.

That would, in a twisted way, favour the less competent and skilled (those who cannot even drive a car that well around other road users) over those who are more physically skilled.

You have argued that no minimum standard of competence should be required of certain road users. I disagree.

I will add that your mental and physical shortcomings, if any, are irrelevant to this discussion, as are mine, if any, and it was silly of you to introduce them to this thread.

The problem isn't usually the physical ability to cycle, it's the road awareness, road craft etc. The 'minimum standard' could be whatever was chosen - doesn't have to just be 'able to ride a bike.'

On balance I don't support a test, though. I do however favour police cracking down on motorists, rather than just cyclists. That's why they seem to have done here in response to recent deaths. Disgraceful when you see the appalling driving day in day out.

Piglet - what minimum standard would you have of pedestrians as they also use the road? Surely if cyclists are to be tested then pedestrians need to be tested as they can be a danger to themselves

I have in 30 years of driving had a person walk into the back of my car, I have had numerous people walk out in front of my car without looking where they are going.

i have had people run into the road and have braked to avoid hitting them with my car.

Possibly others have also had experience of people walking and running into the road and being a danger to themselves - I doubt it is unusual.

I don't know why people keep referencing pedestrians and cyclists- they are totally different. A cyclist is on the road and actively engaging with other vehicles.

Therefore there is a "minimum standard of competence" involved as you put it.

Your logic is faulty. By this reckoning, anyone able to drive a car would be competent, and as you frequently have shown, they aren't.

Your logic is faulty. By this reckoning, anyone able to drive a car would be competent, and as you frequently have shown, they aren't

My logic is not faulty, but yours is.

Drivers of motorised vehicles are required to sit a driving test. There is therefore no legal presumption of competence for them.

Cyclists are not.

You are aware how the human brain works, in terms of basic biology?

Are you ever going to reveal what clothing you think cyclists ought to wear?

Ffs, lessmissabs, your vandetta against the OP is really getting tiring. I'm actually embarrassed to be a cyclist and be associated wih your attitude. She has said that she can't see these cyclists because of their clothing. Its obviously dark clothing and she's suggesting hi-vis or lights. She also mentioned helmets.

Its people like you who give cycling a bad name.

Back to the actual question. Yes to a test, no to insurance. Yes to more driver education as well.

Cyclists in groups are a major menace, especially on rural roads. A basic competency test would be a good idea but I've no idea how this could be administered to children.
Looking on the bright side, if a cyclist collides with my car I've got some scratched paintwork, the outlook for them is considerably worse.

The purpose of this thread is to propose that cyclists, like other road users, should be expected to have a degree of competence.

I just love this circular argument by LMA:

"Drivers of motorised vehicles are required to sit a driving test. There is therefore no legal presumption of competence for them."

"Cyclists are not."

I wonder if anyone finds this accumulation of words to be persuasive.

Pedestrians use roads that's why they are referred to I agree they are using different modes of transport but they are both human
, both are vulnerable to cars and more pedestrians die on the road than cyclists

Pedestrians are not road users.

The idea is only introduced to bring confusion and irrelevant digression to a discussion which mentions cyclists.

There is no concussion it doesn't sit well with your argument to have all road users tested if pedestrians are included we all know pedestrians use the road and are frequently in the road. So to dismiss this part you need to dismiss certain road users

No. I don't.

Pedestrians are not road users.

Three times in three consecutive nights recently I nearly knocked over a pedestrian. Not because I wasn't taking care, but because they were wearing dark clothes and were standing in the middle of the road (while in the process of crossing it) in the dark with cars with lights coming in the other direction. They were invisible. And it wasn't that I was going too fast (less than 20mph on a busy bridge crossing the Clyde). So do we make pedestrians take tests before they ate allowed to cross the road? They are after all then sharing it with other road users? Ironically on two of the occasions I was returning from my local bike shop

I don't know where SantanaLopez is in Glasgow but I've never come across these nasty cyclists that she is so scared and angry about. The only rural roads near a Glasgow suburb that I can think of that she could be "stuck" for 6 miles are the roads out to Strathblane/Drymen or possible near Houston. I've occasionally myself been stuck behind a cyclist(s) on those roads - but realised that my impatience is my problem . Those cyclists have a right to be on the road too.

I've also cycled on those roads - and while there are many considerate drivers who pass when safe and with enough room (think about how much space you would give a horse as a recent Cycling/Car Safety advert described, until it was banned because the cyclist was not wearing a helmet not a legal requirement and was supposedly too far out from the kerb actually she was positioned exactly where the Highway Code says she should and the ASA Ban in itself demonstrated the premise of the ad tbf, the ban has been rescinded pending a review after this was pointed out to them ), there are a few prats who are impatient and try and squeeze past.

Re the cycling on pavements, I agree that that is wrong. However where I live (Glasgow "inner" suburb) there are lots of places where the pavement is "shared use" - but the pedestrians are probably unaware of this as the signs have been put on the lamp posts so high that they are above a pedestrians eye level and they'd have to be looking for them to know that they are there (I've noticed them as a driver because, as a driver doing 30mph I'm looking much further ahead than a pedestrian). I'd also never use them as a cyclist because those particular pavements are too narrow, uneven due to tree roots and full of street furniture so I continue to cycle on the road itself.

I think it is sad that there is such a negative attitude towards cyclists. When dh and I were on a long weekend cycling in Brittany recently, we were impressed at the consideration we were given by drivers and never felt unsafe. And that included cycling on a dual carriageway where the cars and lorries were traveling at 80kph ( only route across a barrage to Dinard). In Holland, Denmark and Belgium people don't feel the need to have to wear high viz clothing and helmets - the car drivers are aware enough of cyclists and not stupid enough to be too impatient.

Ds is 13 and goes out regularly cycling in the suburbs of Glasgow. Should he not be allowed to because he doesn't have a license and is too "young"? Neither dh and I can keep up with him if he is in training mode. He is safe and traffic aware - so why should he be prevented from pursuing a sport that keeps him fit and motivated? Cycle paths are not appropriate at the speeds he is going at.

You say your son is safe and traffic aware. Do you mean that he possesses an adequate level of competence?

Do you think it is possible that there may be people who are not safe and traffic aware?

Pedestrians and cyclists are completely different. Again. A cyclist has the right to be in the road, and is part of the flow of traffic.

Come on Less, you can do better! You said anyone with the ability to ride a bike is therefore competent enough to use the road. But apparently this doesn't apply to cars? As I'm sure you're aware, driving tests weren't always compulsary either.

Prettybird I'm the completely opposite side of the city. It was also not me who was stuck for 6 miles. That's great about your son. You sound very clued up on cycling, though, so he must have been taught properly. My complaint is that there a lot of people out on bikes who weren't taught and seem to be making it up as they go along!

He absolutely does have the right degree of competence. He was cycling to and from school from age 9 (unaccompanied to school from age 10 and from school age 11 as there was a right turn I had to be confident he could judge).

He has been taught road awareness both as a pedestrian and as a cyclist since he was 3. He is taught cycling handling skills at his cycling club.

I can't legislate for numpties out on the road though. Which is why I will often say of the two sports he participates, I think rugby is the safer one

Safety is the reason why he went out before 9am to cycle the Ayr Road, while it is quiet on a Sunday morning. Even though the Ayr Road has a cycle route painted on it for most of its length (which he will use), which was done when the road was taken from two lanes each way to a parking "lane", a cycle lane and then the car lane. There are still cars who will pull out in front of him "not having seen him" , so he has to be alert and assume that all other drivers are idiots (as I was also taught to do as a driver ).

Piglet if you keep stating the same thing over and over again you will still not convince me that I am not using the road as I walk across it to get to the other side, or use the road to access other areas. I have walked down many many roads without pavements and even the highway code used to suggest walking on the road towards oncoming traffic where there is no pavement

Just checked and the highway code Still includes pedestrians and sets out how they should behave along side other highway users when on roads

Pavements are legally part of the Highway (hence including guidance to pedestrians in the Highway Code).

So where is the clamour for pedestrians to be licensed before being "allowed out"? More of them are killed than cyclists .

Pedestrians do not (or should not) mix with other vehicles in the same way as a bicycle, motorbike, car, lorry, whatever. The pavements and crossings are built for their safety. I am sure we were all taught road awareness in school?

Do you not think a test would go some way to removing the numpties?

I think a test would be counter-productive, costly, put people off the healthy pursuit of cycling and make roads more dangerous as the end result would be more cars on the road (as well as an unhealthier nation with all the consequential costs). And the fewer cyclists there are on the roads, the more that car drivers get "surprised" at their presence and irritated at them slowing them down fractionally. So you end up in a vicious circle of negativity.

I have come across many, many more numpties in cars (who have passed tests although you wonder how ) and quite a few numpty pedestrians - but am not seriously suggesting that pedestrians should take a test (just pointing out the logic that if you expect cyclists to do so, then you should expect pedestrians who have the temerity to be on the Highway should do so too).

Not sure they are taught Road Safety at school any more. I remember going to the Tufty Club (showing my age ) but when ds was younger, the way of "teaching" road safety was to send us a series of booklets with stickers which you were expected to go through with your child.

I'm a bit scared to jump in on the big cyclist/driver debate, but there seem to be quite a few people on here who really know their stuff so I've got a question...

Is there any ambiguity about (adult) cyclists on the pavement? I've just moved to a very small town/large village where I walk 25 minutes to the train station every day. (I can't drive, and FWIW can't ride a bike either -DH even bought me a course of cycling lessons a few years ago and I did manage to wobble across an empty car park eventually but the instructor conceded I might not be one of life's cyclists.) Anyway, on this walk there are a few cyclists who ride on the pavement. They go quite slowly but I was a bit surprised the other day when one shouted 'excuse me, please, can I just get past?' She was very polite and I stepped aside and let her past but I did think afterwards, hang on - why did I have to get out of the way? Shouldn't she have gone on the (empty) road?
In Tuesday evening I was walking home when I suddenly had to jump out of the way of a cyclist coming down the hill pretty fast, and that's when I began to wonder if there was some exception that I don't know about because he looked like a 'proper' cyclist IYSWIM, he was all in Lycra with a helmet on and going at speed (though oddly enough, no lights, which is why I had to leap out of the way!). The other cyclists have all been women, with pretty bikes with baskets, pootling along. I've had a good look and I can't see anything about a mixed use path or anything - am I missing something?
To be fair, though, a van mounted the pavement on my walk on Thursday morning so maybe everyone is actually just out to get me.

I don't think pedestrians, cyclists, horses or other road users should be tested as is seen with motorists you can't test against people to not be irrational or impatient later down the road.

Better to have road awareness courses where people can go to learn about safety on the road and how to keep themselves safe, this can include all road users on a voluntary basis