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!

Yes we get it, you don't like cyclists and clearly there are so very many where you live they cause massive tailbacks of traffic. I have never had a problem passing cyclists, but plenty of motorists have cut me up. My dp can cycle 25mph easily and was cut up on a roundabout by a twat of a builder on his phone. He is such a strong cyclist ge overtook him and stayed in front of him. Of course the builder (who lives near us) probably thinks my dp is a twat. Either way he doesn't care but I would like to see so much more courtesy on the road from everyone. Those cyclists huffing and puffing on the road are me, starting out trying to get fit. I try to be as courteous and considerate as I can but I will not cycle in the gutter.

Perhaps they were riding three abrest to stop people from over taking them dangerously?

That would be perfectly understandable but they aren't.

There are long stretches of Roman road with white lines down the middle so plenty wide enough to overtake when there are no bends, pot holes or obstructions. They still persist in riding in packs for miles preventing car from overtaking safely. So the drivers lose patience and overtake unsafely. It makes no sense!

I think all cyclists should have insurance, they can cause accidents or hit pedestrians and get away with it.

overmydeadbody
"Boney I would say some people are idiots."

Yes. but in the context of this thread, those idiots are some cyclists, some drivers and some pedestrians.

it's the cars that are the problem

This is naive, arrogant and downright stupid. Cars are not to blame for people having no idea how to ride safely on the road. Cars are certainly not to blame for cyclist who think red lights do not apply to them. Cars are not to blame for cyclists (or pedestrians) who do not realise just how difficult they are to spot when in dark clothing, even in what passes for "daylight" in winter. Take some responsibility.

There is fault on both sides but only one side is apparently required to learn the rules of the road.

There was a short piece on something like the One Show recently where a cyclist and a lorry driver went out together. The cyclist was horrified to find out just how invisible cyclists were to lorry drivers because of blind spots and the lorry driver was equally educated into how vulnerable a cyclist feels.

I would like to see so much more courtesy on the road from everyone.

Yes, this is my point. I think that cyclists could be more courteous towards drivers, and I was suggesting a test as a way to achieve this.

Being hit and severely injured or killed through your own actions or those of car drivers is taking quite a bit of responsibility.

No, that is taking the consequences.

Sanatana it would mean the end of the boris bike scheme because your minimum clothing requirements would mean that it was no longer a convenient hop-on hop-off, and so people would stop using it, and that would be the end of that.

Personally the most grief I have had is as a pedestrian, from cars.

When driving it's the behaviour of other drivers that most frequently has me spitting. Far far worse than cyclists or motorcyclists etc.

I think honestly that a lot of people just become very aggressive and / or selfish when they get behind the wheel of a car. Not sure why. I think there are psychological reasons - sure there have been studies!

Seriously? They let you rent the bikes without helmets and reflective clothes or lights? I am really surprised by that.

I wish I had seen that bit on the one show. There are no easy answers. There is so much traffic on the road but I don't see the point in tarring everyone with the same brush. Where I live there are steam rollers going to rallies. Tractors can hols up traffic and caravans. They never pull over into lay bys. The beef is always with cyclists.

I cycle on local country lanes for fun & fitness but would never cycle in an urban environment, or in the dark for that matter. I took the cycling proficiency in the 70s (& DS has done it recently). I think helmets ought to be compulsory but am aware that this would put off a significant minority from cycling at all. High-vis clothing ought to be compulsory too - I wear a day-go pink outer layer which is easily visible from half a mile away - I've seen the same hideous colour on other people. It's not difficult to make yourself safer as a cyclist - hold a sensible position, look behind you before changing direction, make clear hand-signals & be prepared to stop & even get off the road if necessary - lots of large agricultural stuff on the move around here.

I have worked as a cycle courier in the US and had cycling holidays in europe. I have never encountered the same level of contempt and hostility towards cyclists then as I have in this country - I find it really baffling.

Drivers seem to want it both ways - they say they want cyclists to obey the laws of the road but they also don't want to give cyclists the same consideration as other vehicles.

Day-glo obviously

I kind of agree. I would maybe say it not in a licensing way, but maybe a compulsory set of cycling proficiency lessons undertaken at 16, with medical notes accepted for the teens who won't be able to ride a bike, full stop. As well as encouraging activity, it should focus heavily on safety and the legal side of things.

My MIL was knocked over by a cyclist and broke a hip, her nose and her wrist, thanks to him being an idiot who decided to swerve onto a pavement (I was there, there wasn't any warning given at all, which wouldn't excuse going on the pavement anyway).

I don't think it should be a vs thing. A lot of dangerous cyclists aren't doing it to be reckless but simply don't know that what they see as safe isn't necessarily safe. At schools, children are constantly taught pedestrian safety (thankfully), and they only know very basic bike safety- wear reflective clothing and helmets, even when they're older. Many adults aren't aware they can't ride on the pavement too. Many adults also don't understand/haven't been explained some basic safety ideas to do with whether to ride two/more abreast or not, what to do with under/overtaking and so on.

So I don't think it should be about accusing cyclists of anything iyswim, but making sure that as many people understand the rules of the road, and how to stay safe, as possible. So not a test as such, but more focus on a wider range of cycle safety.

Am I didn't expect them to stop on a hill. I expected them to stop in the many many laybys along the miles of country road that I and two other cars had to follow them along.

They had plenty of opportunities to pull over. Opportunities that I would have taken had I been on horseback or driving a lorry loaded with sugar beet (common at this time of year here).

They were selfish tossers who did not adhere to the Highway code and took advantage of the fact that I don't dangerously or thoughtlessly overtake cyclists no matter how tempting.

I think that cyclists could be more courteous towards drivers, and I was suggesting a test as a way to achieve this.

People who are courteous are courteous people who aren't aren't. This applies to car drivers as well as cyclists the test doesn't change people's basic attitude.

There are idiot cyclists, but introducing the kind of tests and regulations you are asking for would kill cycling. No more children biking to school. Far less adults cycling. More cars on the road. Public transport more crowded. More pollution, more problems parking etc. People getting less exercise and becoming unhealthy.

Perhaps we can become like parts of the US where walking anywhere is practically impossible.

Or we could all just be more considerate and accept that idiots come in all flavors and all modes of transport, and individually do our best to keep ourselves and others safe.

Overmy

Cyclists ARE bound by the Highway code to not interrupt the flow of traffic and to give way if they are doing so.

Two cars is not a long line of traffic. If it isn't safe to overtake two cyclists, it's probably not to overtake one given the amount of space you are meant to give a cyclist.

bearleftmonkeyright I've often known tractors to pull over into laybys to let a queue of traffic pass by.

To be fair most of the cyclists I have seen have cycled in a perfectly reasonable way - sometimes they hold me up but that's to be expected - I'm more bothered by the cars driving right up behind me trying to push me to overtake when it's not safe to do so.

Occasionally I see cyclists breaking the law and being unsafe but it's not that often.

I guess if you aren't in london it's not surprising you haven't heard of it!

Some info here:

here and here

It is pretty successful:

"BCH commenced operations in July 2010 with 5,000 bicycles and 315 docking stations distributed across the City of London area and parts of eight London boroughs. The coverage zone spans approximately 17 square miles (44 km2), roughly matching the Zone 1 Travelcard area. As of March 2012 there were some 8,000 cycles and 570 docking stations in the scheme, which had been used for over 19 million journeys."

I just wish that every single road had cycle lanes like in Munich! I hate overtaking cyclists when I'm driving!

Damn my highlighting didn't work!

Pretty successful - over 19,000,000 journeys since the scheme started in July 2010. And that's just in one small patch of london. They are really very very popular indeed, and the main reason for that is that it is highly convenient and keenly priced.