Learner Drivers

pottssteve

Hello,
There are many complaints about the lack of care given by car drivers to other road users. It is true that being on a bike gives you a new perspective on road use, and an appreciation of the dangers. So, should learner drivers, commercial license drivers and people who have been disqualified and are reapplying for a car license be compelled to ride a bike as part of their training? Maybe to do a Bikeability type scheme? An exception could be made for disabled drivers, but if you're able-bodied and can't ride a bike then you'd need to learn - it's no harder than riding a car.
Votes/comments, please.
Ta

pottssteve

People who voted "no", why not?

JC.152

I don't know about making them ride a bike but learners should have to deal with things like cyclists, pedastrians or horses in practising and for their test as thats what they'll deal with once their driving

huggy

I agree, I've been thinking this for a while - they should definitely have an obligatory day of cycling in their local town - with clipless pedals and using aerobars!

OffTheBackAdam

It wouldn't make a jot of difference. The inconsiderate and dangerous drivers would still be inconsiderate and dangerous, they probably would be on a bike too.
I'd say an IQ test should be passed instead.

Smokin Joe

I was a driving instructor for twenty years, most of it in and around London. I taught many cyclists to drive because of my cycling club connections, and cycling experience made absolutely no difference to how the pupil behaved when driving a car. They were no more or less considerate to vulnarable road users than any other catagory, neither did they learn any faster. The difference between driving and cycling speeds means there is little in common with the two sets of skills required for cars and bikes.

With motorcyclists however, it was completely different. They generally picked up car driving very quickly as they were used to both the speeds and the purpose of the controls.

richk

Isn't 'hazard perception' part of the test now? (It's years since I did mine). Does this include other road users at any point? eg cyclists, horses, pedestrians, ptw's? Maybe somebody who's passed recently can enlighten?

Clever Pun

RichK wrote:

Isn't 'hazard perception' part of the test now? (It's years since I did mine). Does this include other road users at any point? eg cyclists, horses, pedestrians, ptw's? Maybe somebody who's passed recently can enlighten?

exactly, I had to take one a couple years back for my motorcycle licence, there were peds and cyclists in the test. The theory test also involved questions about vunerable road users

I suspect most of the selfish sh1ts out there are the ones who are slightly older

schmako

After just coming back from another driving lesson, i think instructors give enough information with regards to cyclists. Its just some stupid drivers choose to ignore them.

gavintc

pottssteve wrote:

People who voted "no", why not?

There is no connection between the 2 activities. Competence on a bike does not make a better driver. It would not work in the 'real' world. There are people out there who cannot ride a bike, does that make them un-suited to have a car licence.

The hard facts are that there are bad drivers out there. They have either forgotten or ignored their training and no amount of increased standards on a Cat B test will make them any better as drivers.

chuckcork

Interesting question. Having taken a refresher driving lesson after having not driven for some 7 years or so, I was asked by the instructor whether I had driven recently. I said "no, but in the last 7 years I did maybe 19,000 miles on a motorbike, and have done around 12,000 miles on a bicycle" to which the reply was, "Oh, your used to be on the road again".

I would argue that the skills I learnt from motorcycle instructors when I had a motorbike are directly applicable, like road position, the attitude you should take towards danger points like cars coming out of junctions and so on. A fit male cyclist will easily enough get up to a speed fo 25mph for short stretches at least, and stronger riders will go faster than that and for longer. That is the speed of a motorcyclist in an urban area, and cyclists face the same dangers, we just don't have the option of a heavy helmet or body armour to protect us, or the speed to ride in with traffic faster than we can pedal.

Of course that means we are possibly less likely to run into something at higher speed, but then again on a steep downhill 40mph plus is also easily achievable (personal max achieved was 67kph)

Garry71

It might be a good idea for cyclists to have driving lessons.
They could then find out how annoying it is for a motorist to politely wait behind a cyclist for a safe moment to pass, only to have the cyclist squeeze up the inside at the lights, go through on red, and then get stuck behind the same tw4t again when the lights change.
It isn't just motorists who need to see the other point of view.

Garry

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

I would say no, as I believe (and have probably stated before) that cycling proficiency should be compulsory in schools.
Waiting until driving age is too late, make it the norm from a young age and kill two birds with one stone.