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

Marco_Panettone

brat wrote: »

Infrastructure designed to remove the less confident or novice cyclist, especially the commuter cyclist, from conflict with heavy traffic is the single most important pro cycling directive facing this country.
I think we might even be able to agree on this!

No - good cycle infrastructure is suitable for EVERYONE, young kids, novice/less-confident riders, confident riders on utility bikes AND fast roadies.

Tobster86 wrote: »

I still don't fully agree with this, but only on the overly-optimistic basis that all the necessary infrastructure exists, requiring only changes in attitudes for it to work effectively. And maybe some population control.

And yet nobody has ever suggested a mechanism for ensuring 100% of people have a good attitude 100% of the time. And even if the attitude is always right you simply cannot ask people to not make mistakes. We absolutely have to acknowledge that people make mistakes - even very good drivers/riders misjudge things - and create an environment where these errors don't harm others.



Most drivers don't want to harm someone on a bike.

brat

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

No - good cycle infrastructure is suitable for EVERYONE, young kids, novice/less-confident riders, confident riders on utility bikes AND fast roadies.

I perhaps unwittingly excluded the context from my statement, which was better expressed in my later post. Ideally, like you say, good infrastructure would suit everyone, but the lack of it is having the most significant effect on the less confident group, preventing them from considering commuting or utility cycling.

Marco_Panettone

brat wrote: »

I perhaps unwittingly excluded the context from my statement, which was better expressed in my later post. Ideally, like you say, good infrastructure would suit everyone, but the lack of it is having the most significant effect on the less confident group, preventing them from considering commuting or utility cycling.

Of course, but if you're building something you should do it properly! If it works for kids going to primary school AND for me on a road bike it will work for everyone in between. If it excludes any particular 'type' then it creates the conflict it should be removing.

brat

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

And even if the attitude is always right you simply cannot ask people to not make mistakes. We absolutely have to acknowledge that people make mistakes - even very good drivers/riders misjudge things - and create an environment where these errors don't harm others.



Most drivers don't want to harm someone on a bike.

This is a very valid point, and is borne out by proper analysis of the causes of fatal collisions involving cyclists. There is a huge contrast (in degrees of poor driver attitude or driver omission) between cyclist fatalities and car driver fatalities.

Most cyclists are killed by ordinary drivers driving normally who make a mistake, either a failure to observe or an inattentive incident.
By contrast, when car drivers are killed, a very high percentage of the causers are already driving illegally, thrill seeking, drunk or drugged, excessively tired, or (increasingly) distracted due to smartphone addiction. The degree of negligence required to cause the fatality of a car driver is (on average) much higher than that which kills cyclists.

brat

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Of course, but if you're building something you should do it properly! If it works for kids going to primary school AND for me on a road bike it will work for everyone in between. If it excludes any particular 'type' then it creates the conflict it should be removing.

I have a sense that developing technology may be a significant factor in the debate, with driverless vehicles which, by their nature, would be more controllable and compliant, perhaps allowing more roadspace for cycling infrastructure.

ceredigion

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

No - good cycle infrastructure is suitable for EVERYONE, young kids, novice/less-confident riders, confident riders on utility bikes AND fast roadies.

Actually don't agree with you , for fun I choose to ride up and down duel carriageways at 25 mph plus on a sunday morning . I don't want cycling infrastructure . Which is why the CTT and BC don't actually campaign for more of it .

Marco_Panettone

ceredigion wrote: »

Actually don't agree with you , for fun I choose to ride up and down duel carriageways at 25 mph plus on a sunday morning . I don't want cycling infrastructure . Which is why the CTT and BC don't actually campaign for more of it .

What you choose to do for pleasure has nothing to do with the quality of the infrastructure. Why would a 4m wide traffic-free strip of tarmac with priority and protection at junctions not allow you to ride time trials?


Who knows, more people might actually join you, unless it's the lack of competition you enjoy?

Chrisblue1962

My two pennyworth...

1. Cycle training for adults should not be compulsory but may be recommended for some, especially if they have not cycled on roads for a while, don't drive or driven for a while.

2. I think it should be recommended for school-age children who cycle to have cycle training as they are probably more vunerable than other road users and it would be an ideal opportunity to instill good habits .

At the end of the day, compulsion is not the issue, safety is and if you "can't be bothered" then you've made your choice, which in some peoples eyes may be a very foolish one as there is no law against being an idiot . Ride but ride safely.

PS Ex-car owner, recently returned to cycling

brightonman123

I did cycling safety certificate at junior school, still have the badge! Not sure if scheme still runs, but it was good to learn control of your bike, with signalling, look and listen etc..

modsandmockers

esuhl wrote: »

I've pointed out plenty of problems with your bizarre trolling

Esuhl - saying that somebody is a troll is not the same thing as engaging in a reasoned debate.

brat wrote: »

"New born cyclists!?" What a weird description.
No childhood training I've had or given involves primary positioning. It's a position that requires confidence and awareness that is beyond the basic training imparted in childhood cycling proficiency or bike ability.
So, once again your argument fails because you don't understand those you are taking issue with.

Taking the lane is one of the main features of the primary position. Is that what you see as lane hogging?

Brat - what is the point of your opening mis-quote? My meaning was crystal clear. There is nothing wrong with primary positioning as described in CycleCraft. But I have several times tried to start a reasoned debate about how many newly-born cyclists have actually read the book. I believe that many of them have taken on board the advice of people like yourself, and interpreted it as a licence to engage in the activity which I call lane-hogging.

brat wrote: »

I have a sense that developing technology may be a significant factor in the debate, with driverless vehicles which, by their nature, would be more controllable and compliant, perhaps allowing more roadspace for cycling infrastructure.

I think that, if and when driverless vehicles become viable, they will immediately replace Boris Bikes, and the roadspace which is currently dedicated to cyclists will rapidly become part of a whole new infrastructure for the exclusive use of driverless vehicles.