If there was compulsory training for cyclists, would that put you off cycling?

modsandmockers

The thread title is taken from a post on another thread, but I think it is well worth discussing. For me personally, the question is irrelevant because I have already been put off cycling on the highway because it's too much hassle.

Compulsory training for motorists seems to put no-one off motoring...

esuhl

Here we go again!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B0CyOAO8y0#t=16

modsandmockers wrote: »

Compulsory training for motorists seems to put no-one off motoring...

No, I guess motorists aren't put off at all by compulsory training, given how many drive without a licence or insurance.

modsandmockers

esuhl wrote: »

given how many drive without a licence or insurance.

How many cyclists do you know who carry a licence and insurance?

Norman_Castle

No.

If cycling on the highway is to much hassle just use the pavements. Its nearly legal. You do get the occasional miserable old fart moaning about it but moaning people need something to moan about so really you're providing a service. A bit like Help the Aged.

This thread would be much better with a poll at the start.

Dr._Shoe

I don't think cyclists should be allowed on the road unless they are car drivers- and vice versa. Then we'd see an end to the cyclist vs. car drivers debate.

skivenov

modsandmockers wrote: »

The thread title is taken from a post on another thread, but I think it is well worth discussing. For me personally, the question is irrelevant because I have already been put off cycling on the highway because it's too much hassle.

Compulsory training for motorists seems to put no-one off motoring...

Nope, although I'd hope a full class A entitlement would cover it.

modsandmockers

Dr._Shoe wrote: »

I don't think cyclists should be allowed on the road unless they are car drivers- and vice versa. Then we'd see an end to the cyclist vs. car drivers debate.

That makes sense - what would you need to do in order to qualify as a cyclist?

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

That makes sense - what would you need to do in order to qualify as a cyclist?

So you would create a blanket exclusion on all cyclists who can't afford a driving test and a car?
You would exclude those who have no interest in driving a car?.

Do you really think that makes sense and is fair?

All cyclists who need to cycle would take a test if it was compulsory.

Many others wouldn't.

I started cycling on roads when I was 5. I don't know that they would set a test for that age group.

Norman_Castle

modsandmockers wrote: »

Compulsory training for motorists seems to put no-one off motoring...

Apart from the many people who would like to drive but don't have a licence.

Tobster86

No it would not, and I would fully support this.

I think people should pass a cycling test and hold a cycling licence for a relevant period of time before they're allowed to take a driving test.

frisbeej

Motorcyclists have Compulsory Basic Training (CBT). Car drivers have none.