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

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

That’s the sort of bike ride that makes sense. Enough time and space to keep out of the way of those pesky motorists, and probably little sign of any pedestrians (or anything else to argue about, such as yet another expensive and useless attempt at persuading cyclists to stay on their own ‘infrastructure’ whenever it exists).

That's funny. Motorists have their own dedicated infrastructure so they can stay out of the way of those pesky cyclists: motorways. Yet they constantly clog up our residential streets. Most drivers don't even have the common decency to keep their vehicle on their land; they just dump their cars on a public thoroughfare whenever they feel like it, obstructing traffic and causing an eyesore.

We can go round like this for a while. Fun, isn't it?

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

Most pedestrians are indeed unthinking laypersons, and as far as cyclists’ behaviour goes, there is no requirement that they should be any different. They do not understand why cyclists are able to exploit the glorious ambiguities of bike regulations in order to make up their own set of rules which nobody dares to challenge. It’s too easy for cyclists to play the vulnerable road user card when it suits them, and then take to a busy dual carriageway for a 20-25mph sprint whilst deliberately obstructing the free passage of the motor vehicles behind them.

Haha! What's the chances of Mocker actually answering the question asked of him instead of vomiting some more schoolboy anti cycling bile?

No chance!

modsandmockers wrote: »

QUOTE - Are you aware of shared crossings? We have lots of them.

Yes - but we are talking about pedestrian crossings.

...and a shared 'toucan' crossing is a type of pedestrian crossing. See here. It's listed under the heading of "Pedestrian Crossings" in the Highway Code

modsandmockers

esuhl wrote: »

That's funny. Motorists have their own dedicated infrastructure so they can stay out of the way of those pesky cyclists: motorways. Yet they constantly clog up our residential streets. Most drivers don't even have the common decency to keep their vehicle on their land; they just dump their cars on a public thoroughfare whenever they feel like it, obstructing traffic and causing an eyesore.

We can go round like this for a while. Fun, isn't it?

You prove my point - the motor vehicle has taken over the streets. That does not make it right for cyclists to take over the pavement.

You to play...

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

You prove my point - the motor vehicle has taken over the streets. That does not make it right for cyclists to take over the pavement.

You to play...

Where I live, and on many residential streets, it would appear that it's the motor car that has taken over the pavement.



I never have to worry about cyclists on pavements. Cars are a nightmare. I had one toot at me because I was jogging toward a bit of pavement he wanted to park on. :think:

modsandmockers

brat wrote: »

Cars are a nightmare

At last we agree - unfortunately, most people still prefer to think that they are a dream come true!

marleyboy

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...

It wouldn't put me off cycling, but as I now drive, the weather might .

You would be surprised how many people are put off driving due to the costs involved in training. However I cannot see how compulsory cycle training would work for a child with stabilizers, or a teenage kid riding to school and back.

modsandmockers

marleyboy wrote: »

You would be surprised how many people are put off driving due to the costs involved in training. However I cannot see how compulsory cycle training would work for a child with stabilizers, or a teenage kid riding to school and back.

You make a good point, but it raises the question ‘if somebody cannot afford driving lessons, then does it make sense to allow them to start cycling instead without any kind of check on either their skills and attitude, nor on the roadworthiness of their vehicle?’

armyknife

modsandmockers wrote: »

.....
QUOTE - Back in the real world, I had a nice cross-country ride to do some shopping; despite the occasional drizzle it was hat off weather. :-)

That’s the sort of bike ride that makes sense. Enough time and space to keep out of the way of those pesky motorists, and probably little sign of any pedestrians (or anything else to argue about, such as yet another expensive and useless attempt at persuading cyclists to stay on their own ‘infrastructure’ whenever it exists).

You edited out the section of my post most germane to the 'discussion' you're having here:

armyknife wrote: »

Trolling/attention-seeking reaching desperation levels.

Back in the real world, I had a nice cross-country ride to do some shopping; despite the occasional drizzle it was hat off weather. :-)

marleyboy

modsandmockers wrote: »

You make a good point, but it raises the question ‘if somebody cannot afford driving lessons, then does it make sense to allow them to start cycling instead without any kind of check on either their skills and attitude, nor on the roadworthiness of their vehicle?’

Perfect sense, if you cannot afford to drive to work, then the cheaper alternative would be the pushbike. We teach our children to ride a bike, we don't say "Not until your 18 Son", indeed even some schools have rider safety courses for the children.

Lets not forget that roads were created for horse drawn carriages, followed by the pushbike, the cars on the road were the last edition, in the days when even the driver did not need a license to drive on them.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

You make a good point, but it raises the question ‘if somebody cannot afford driving lessons, then does it make sense to allow them to start cycling instead without any kind of check on either their skills and attitude, nor on the roadworthiness of their vehicle?’

The question has been around for ever, so much so that if a compulsory cycling test made sense, it would have been implemented in some developed country somewhere.

We don't have to pass tests to climb mountains or to swim in the sea, but, like cycling, these activities have elements of risk about them.

Both of my girls have had swimming and cycling instruction at school, and have taken part in school led outdoor pursuits including mountain climbing and trekking.

These activities have a self limiting feature about them. You don't see many people climb the Old Man of Hoy unless they have built up the necessary skils to allow them to do this. Similarly, you don't see many 4 year olds riding their stabilised bike on a 70mph dual carriageway. People don't take bikes on to the road unless they feel capable of looking after themselves.

Cycling groups are calling for compulsory cycle training in school. That would be a good develpment. But testing abilities would be a retrograde step. It would restrict the 'free to all' nature of cycling, and seriously reduce the number of cyclists.
A far better, more constructive idea would be to have cycling aptitude and comprehension as a necessary part of the driving test, to make all drivers much more aware of the needs of cyclists and the responsibilities motorists have around them.