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

Retrogamer

brat wrote: »

£33 per annum sounds more realistic...

It's Monday and i still haven't had my coffee yet

fred246

If cyclists need insurance then surely pedestrians need it too.

esuhl

fred246 wrote: »

If cyclists need insurance then surely pedestrians need it too.

My home insurance gives me £2,000,000 public liability cover. Heaven forbid, but if I were to inadvertently damage the tyres of a vehicle by allowing myself to run over, wouldn't that cover me?

And the legal assistance option would make it easy to sue drivers for the damage they might cause.

Tobster86

fred246 wrote: »

If cyclists need insurance then surely pedestrians need it too.

Pedestrians generally don't continuously run around at 20mph with various metal protrusions sticking out.

I'm not third-party insured as a cyclist but am strongly considering it. It wouldn't take a great deal of human error for tight filtering between a pair of brand new Audis to turn into quite an expensive occasion.

Marco_Panettone

Tobster86 wrote: »

Pedestrians generally don't continuously run around at 20mph with various metal protrusions sticking out.

I'm not third-party insured as a cyclist but am strongly considering it. It wouldn't take a great deal of human error for tight filtering between a pair of brand new Audis to turn into quite an expensive occasion.

Neither do the VAST majority of people on bikes. Having insurance does not make filtering too fast (or driving badly for that matter) ok. You can still do damage to people and property, and insurance doesn't change that one iota. It certainly doesn't prevent drivers from doing so; why would it be any different for people on bikes?


It's still probably worth having (I'm a BC member, but mainly for the race licence), but it isn't a tool to create safer cycling.

Tobster86

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Neither do the VAST majority of people on bikes. Having insurance does not make filtering too fast (or driving badly for that matter) ok. You can still do damage to people and property, and insurance doesn't change that one iota. It certainly doesn't prevent drivers from doing so; why would it be any different for people on bikes?


It's still probably worth having (I'm a BC member, but mainly for the race licence), but it isn't a tool to create safer cycling.

I agree it won't make anything safer and it doesn't make bad driving or cycling ok; but ultimately nobody drives or cycles perfectly at all time, and I'm just pointing out that a cycling error is likely to cause a lot more property damage than a walking error.

Marco_Panettone

Tobster86 wrote: »

I agree it won't make anything safer and it doesn't make bad driving or cycling ok; but ultimately nobody drives or cycles perfectly at all time, and I'm just pointing out that a cycling error is likely to cause a lot more property damage than a walking error.

And that's the point I disagree with - I'd go with "very slightly more likely to cause slightly more damage". You could do more damage running in some situations.


Either way, neither activity is likely to cause ANY damage to anything or anyone, even in the case of a collision. That's why insurance is not a legal requirement.

armyknife

Why oh why can't cyclists take mandatory courses so they make the correct responses to trolling posters. :rolleyes:

And whilst I'm at it, why don't they carry mandatory insurance just in case one of their posts upsets the sensibilities of vehicle dependent posters?

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.

In Heaven - oops, I meant to say Holland!, I believe that ‘cycle craft’ is a standard part of the school curriculum, and includes practical experience/training. This would imply that most motorists automatically have quite a lot of verifiable cycling experience before getting behind a steering wheel.

Dutch people, apparently, tend to treat their bikes more like wheelbarrows than racing machines, and have little use for lycra and magic hats.

In the UK, cycling has evolved differently - family cycling, if it takes place at all, takes place mostly on designated leisure routes and frequently begins and ends with a car ride. Other forms of cycling are competitive, and vehicular cycling is, increasingly, no exception. UK adults increasingly take up vehicular cycling without any childhood experience to build upon. I believe that, especially for young adult males, the attraction is mostly ‘macho’.

One of the mantras of the UK pro-cycling evangelists is that cycling can extend your lifespan by up to ten years, and that therefore everybody should be encouraged to take up commuter-cycling. This ignores the fact that commuter-cycling in the UK is frequently an extremely unpleasant experience. The majority of people who can be bothered to give their bodies the necessary workouts will find a much more enjoyable method than biking to work and back.

I take a lot of flak on here because I am posting stuff on a cycling forum which cyclists simply don’t want to hear. But what would be the point of posting it on the motoring forum?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23587916

The famously flat Dutch terrain, combined with densely-populated areas, mean that most journeys are of short duration and not too difficult to complete.

Few Dutch people don lycra to get out on their bike, preferring to ride to work, the shops or the pub in whatever clothes they think appropriate for their final destination.

Of course, the cycle paths lend themselves to sauntering along in summer dresses in a way a death-defying, white-knuckle ride in rush-hour traffic does not. It is also partly because of this that people don't need showers at work to be able to commute by bike - it's a no-sweat experience.

Dutch people also tend to go helmet-free because they are protected by the cycle-centric rules of the roads and the way infrastructure is designed. If you see someone wearing a cycling helmet in The Netherlands, the chances are they're a tourist or a professional.

Enterprise_1701C

I took a cycling proficiency test and was delighted to pass.

I also qualified as a cycling proficiency trainer. Seeing the mindset of children in the way that they cycled before they were trained and the way they cycled after they were trained was amazing, we taught them to respect the road and what to watch out for, and everything else necessary. The funny thing was the girl that started off as the worst cyclist ended up as the best.

I would not have let my kids out on the road on their bikes without training, and find it rather strange when people think they can just let their kids out on the roads with no training whatsoever, but find those adults are poor cyclists themselves.

In short, training should be compulsory, if only to learn how to react to drivers that try to force you off the road.