If there was compulsory training for cyclists, would that put you off cycling?
Comments
-
Norman_Castle wrote: »Apart from the many people who would like to drive but don't have a licence.
Just what I said. But mods (bizarrely) takes that to mean that cyclists should be licensed.
I suppose, given that logic, pedestrians should be licensed too. Maybe he wants children to be kept on short leashes and banned from using pavements without adult supervision?
It's hard to have a rational debate with someone who doesn't think rationally. Roll on the clowns!0 -
If there was compulsory training, it would teach all cyclists how to cycle in a way which (judging from previous discussions) would just p1ss drivers off even more.
Therefore, does OP really want this?
I think not.“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an a** of yourself.”
<><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><><><><><><> Don't forget to like and subscribe \/ \/ \/0 -
Cyclists don't have a test to pass because, like pedestrians they use the road by right. This is because, like pedestrians, cyclists don't add risk to the road.
Motorists in contrast, drive heavy machines that can and do kill, so they have to be kept under control, and accept and show responsibility for the effect their dangerous momentum could have on other road users.
Their use of the road is therefore under licence, in other words a conditional right.
That difference should define the 'on road' relationship between the different road user groups, and it is a basis of the thinking for presumed liability.
I think that's the way it should be, and the way it should remain. I believe that bikeability should be part of the school curriculum, both in primary and secondary schools, but I believe a compulsory test would be a move in the wrong direction. It would discourage young riders, it would be expensive. But more importantly, it would (further) reduce motorists' acceptance of their individual responsibility for a duty of care to cyclists.Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
I think that's the way it should be, and the way it should remain. I believe that bikeability should be part of the school curriculum, both in primary and secondary schools, but I believe a compulsory test would be a move in the wrong direction. It would discourage young riders, it would be expensive. But more importantly, it would (further) reduce motorists' acceptance of their individual responsibility for a duty of care to cyclists.
I think I agree, but I would like to see wider availability (and advertising) of bikeability training for adults.
I returned to cycling to find that the advice had changed (as had road conditions). I did some research and obtained and read a copy of the book and I'm convinced it made me a better and safer cyclist. However, I tend to diligently research almost everything I do (I'm an engineer and mildly obsessive compulsive - quite a combination).
The current surge in cycling as a hobby and mode of transport will see lots of inexperienced cyclists like me taking to the roads, and I think the provision of training would be a good idea. I'd be happy to see that subsidised by some of the funding currently going to cycling infrastructure, as it will have wider benefits, particularly for those cycling away from urban centres, although the ideal would be to do both.0 -
Before deciding whether or not "compulsory training" is required you need to establish what the desired outcome is. You then need to work out what the best route to that outcome is.
In this case, what is the aim?It's only numbers.0 -
Marco_Panettone wrote: »In this case, what is the aim?
While I advocate compulsory training for other reasons (the fact that roads, unlike pavements and footpaths, have a complex set of protocols that apply to all users; dictating their effective and safe use), many motorists would simply advocate it on the grounds that it would deter cycling so they wouldn't have to share the space.
There's probably a minority of, well, 'hardcore lycra louts' that advocate further restrictions and enforcement towards motorists for the same reasons.
Reasonable people, regardless of their means of transports*, would prefer not to have to share the roads with either group.
*Notice the plural.0 -
Passed my cycling proficiency test when i was 10 years old and started to cycle on the roads from then, mostly on my Raleigh Chopper (which i still have
) on route to local library.
I'm insured third party on all my bicycles just now as well.
I already have a car license.
Compulsory test wouldn't put me off.
If someone is relatively new to cycling on the roads then the proficiency test would be helpful for them but don't think it should be mandatory.All your base are belong to us.0 -
"How many cyclists do you know who carry a licence and insurance?".
Well I'm not going to comment on the inane crack about licence, but I do think it's pretty telling about the low level of risks to third parties from cyclists that the Cycling and Touring Club manages to include £10M of third party insurance in its £41.50 annual membership.
http://www.ctc.org.uk/membership/member-benefits0 -
I got third party insurance via British Cycling and i think that was only £33ish per year if i remember. ?
It's already saved me more than double what it cost with the 10% off Halfords.All your base are belong to us.0 -
Retrogamer wrote: »I got third party insurance via British Cycling and i think that was only £33ish a month or so?
It's already saved me more than double what it cost with the 10% off Halfords.
£33 per annum sounds more realistic...
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards