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 a test like the driving test would be practical economically, and I wouldn't like to see people put off cycling at a certain age, or by restrictions to do with having to be accompanied.

I think the big thing is convincing (some) cyclists that the rules are there to keep them safe. I live in a city with a large proportion of students, many of whom have never touched a bike before they came here, many of whom come from countries where the rules of the road are different anyway.

Every now and again the police and the universities/FE colleges clamp down and have sessions and voluntary safety courses. Every time they find the same thing: people who aren't cycling badly because they are wankers (though I'm sure some are just as some drivers are), but people who genuinely do not realize they are doing anything wrong. Eg., people who are shocked to learn they should not ride the wrong way down a one-way street, or who think cycling on the pavement is a considerate and safe option, especially if you've forgot your lights.

Obviously, it's dangerous to break the law for whatever reason, but someone who decides to take a cheeky shot cut down the one-way street will know a car might come the other way and will be alert. Someone who doesn't know they shouldn't do it simply won't be so alert.

I know it's just one section of the population, but I think all universities and FE colleges ought to really push this (as lots do), to make sure their students at least have a chance to find out what the rules are.

almost everybody who drives has been tested . Doesn't stop mobile phone use, smoking, driving in high heels, tailgating, brake-accelerate-brake and all the other fuckwittery.

difference is that cyclists who do something stupid have a higher chance of killing themselves. motorists tend to kill others.

training and help, yes - but cycling license unworkable.

Pedestrians get killed and injured all the time by cars as well.

The answer isn't to restrict people using convenient, cheap and gentle ways of getting around (on foot, on bikes) when actually it's the cars that are the problem, and the drivers.

If you took all the bicycles off the road tomorrow, the numbers of people being killed & seriously injured on the roads would not change. There would still be pedestrians killed, crashes, pile-ups, children run over on crossings and all the rest of it.

If you took all the motor vehicles off the road tomorrow, you would reduce the figures to just hardly any at all.

And yet people insist that it's not motor vehicles that are the problem.

I just don't understand it.

I find the ones dressed appropriately are aggressive and selfish road users

I suspect the ones who you find are 'aggressive and selfish' are the ones who've had training and are taking the primary position.

As a pedestrian I get that cyclists are vulnerable and that cycling is a good thing.

But when cyclists are silently pelting towards me on the pavement or when I'm on a crossing, or when I'm walking the dogs on a path / track that has multiple NO CYCLING signs and I'm still constantly having to dodge them when they come out of nowhere, they're annoying and scary.

it's the cars that are the problem

This. This a thousand times, in letters ten feet high.

I'm off out for a bike ride. Threads like this piss me off immeasurably.

Let's hope I don't get side swiped by some fuckwit talking on his phone, eh?

Cycling on the pavement is illegal.

People who behave illegally should not be taken as the standard for everyone.

I think a lot of it depends on where you live / go as well.

The best vehicle / cycling / pedestrian behaviour I have come across is where I work, where there are a lot of pedestrians and cyclists, the cyclists are hopping on and off (rented bikes) the pedestrians are wanding out all over the road and many of the vehicles are driven as a job. Everyone knows the score on those roads and so everyone is very alert as to what is going on.

I think there have been studies and things in Holland, maybe, which showed that when you reduced the barriers between the different modes of transport, everyone started behaving with more courtesy and care towards each other.

When I was at school we had to do a couple of day's training in the school holidays and then a cycling proficiency test. We then got to go to a presentation ceremony and receive a special badge, certificate and ruler from the Mayor :o

I agree OP, from the point of view of a cyclist. I can't drive, and started cycling to work a few years ago. I quickly realised that as I hadn't sat the theory test for driving, I didn't know enough about road signs, rules, signals. I stopped cycling until I'd read the Highway Code through and through. I wished there's been a formal way for adults like me to learn road sense.

I would like to see much more training. As a PP said, in the 1970s cycling proficiency was done in school time and covered the rules of the road and a bit of safety.

The first stop to a motorcycle licence is a morning in a car park learning the rules and the ropes, then you venture out under supervision. A big part of the training is how to ride defensively - the only person who really cares about your safety on 2 wheels is yourself.

It would be great if the same were available for cyclists. I also live in a uni town. Many students on bicycles seem baffled when I point out that Give Way means they stop for me, not vice versa.

Blimey, make cycling into an elitist hobby, why don't you?
Maybe licenses for pedestrians will be next.

What does a " properly " dressed cyclist wear, then?

Rings bell at nafforf.

None of these points really convince me that a test is a bad idea.

Sure, cars still cause accidents, but I am quite sure that there would be more if there was no training or tests involved!

But tabard, some people don't know it is illegal.

I know they should - I'm not making excuses. But we live in a culture where people on the whole do know perfectly well that you don't expect to get in a car without acquainting yourself with the law. Whereas lots of people think cycling is pretty much just common sense, so they conclude riding on the pavement is a good idea if they're a bit wobbly, whatever.

The problem is qualitatively different from bad drivers.

Blimey, make cycling into an elitist hobby, why don't you?

No, I want to make it a safe hobby.

What does a " properly " dressed cyclist wear, then?

A helmet and reflective clothing, for a start.

I have seen my fair share of crap cyclists. Not so long ago one was driving on the busy main road instead of using the bloody cycle lane. It was so dangerous and I couldn't overtake him and there was no reason why he couldn't use the perfectly good cycle lane.

But then I see many drivers not use indicators on roundabouts and use the wrong lane.

I would love to see cycling proficiency courses brought back at school. NWIH would I allow my children to bike on the road without knowing the highway code.

But again, I see so many drivers who could probably do with reading it again too.

There is a massive amount of rubbish spouted by people who have never cycled on the roads, but seem to think they know how to cycle better than people who do it every day.

The fact is, there is a big difference sometimes between the safest action, and what is commonly perceived as the safest action.

Without exception, all the adult cyclists I know also have driving licences. They are well aware of the rules of the road, but also go out of their way to educate themselves on the safest way to cycle - and this isn't always just common sense (e.g. things like taking an assertive position in the road, rather than hugging the kerb, and avoiding the more dangerous cycle lanes can be counter-intuitive).

While I agree that this training should be available to cyclists of all ages, I don't think there is any point in licencing it. It would be too big a barrier to cycling. As an alternative, I think that there should be a cycling element to the driving test - drivers should be specifically educated on the behaviour of other road users (also, I think part of the driving test should be about awareness of big lorries, etc, and their limitations, for the same reason).

Also, curious to know in what way the cyclists encountered by the OP weren't dressed properly? Were they naked or something? Not sure what other special clothing they'd need in daylight.

Motor car drivers & passengers should wear helmets, too. The case for that is just as compelling.
Cars should be painted in reflective colours instead of the dark ones preferred.
I can't put into words how U I find OP. Yet more typical British culture of resentment.

A helmet and reflective clothing, for a start

Sorry - cross post. Actually, reflective clothing doesn't really achieve anything in daylight.

Also helmets are completely useless in an impact more than ~20mph, and there is evidence that wearing a helmet leads to drivers giving you less room when overtaking. I'd always wear one in town and on trails, but on country roads, there is a good argument that it's less safe to wear one.

Having just sat behind four cyclists on a country road who refused to pull into lay bys to allow us to overtake for 6 miles, yes some of them do need to learn some manners. It would have been bullish to overtake them with the parlous state of the road edges so we had to crawl along behind them.

Tractor drivers and other slow moving traffic, riders etc all pull over to avoid a tailback.

Arrogant selfish sods.