Forum home Commuter cycling forum Commuting chat

Cycling Licence Scheme

2

Posts

  • Popcorn?

    I always need popcorn... mmmmmm popcorn...

    I thought Litts made some good points in his letter, I agree that a licensing requirement wuld need some serious thought, but his points about increasing awareness in cyclists of the training available and of increasing drivers' awareness of the danger they pose to cyclists were extremely relevant.
  • LittigatorLittigator Posts: 1,262
    thankyouverymuch LiT smug smile

    As for trhe rest of you :P

    AAAAAAAAANyway Biondino, how do you keep getting these fancy emoticons and what was the green one trying to say, m*sturbation makes you feel sick??? :?
    Roadie FCN: 3

    Fixed FCN: 6
  • Clever PunClever Pun Posts: 6,778
    <snip> Perhaps driving tests should reference cyclists and how to deal with them safely?

    I took one for a full motorbike licence 2 years ago and there were questions about vulnerable road users and in the hazard perception test example there was a cyclist pulling out into the road to overtake a stationary vehicle

    So that's covered... but from what you've said above you still drive with your hands in the 10-2 position right?

    Didn't think so :wink: ... it helps but ultimately doesn't make that much difference.
    Purveyor of sonic doom

    Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
    Fixed Pista- FCN 5
    Beared Bromptonite - FCN 14
  • biondinobiondino Posts: 5,990
    Clever Pun wrote:
    So that's covered... but from what you've said above you still drive with your hands in the 10-2 position right?

    Didn't think so :wink: ... it helps but ultimately doesn't make that much difference.

    Um... how else do people drive?
  • biondino wrote:
    Clever Pun wrote:
    So that's covered... but from what you've said above you still drive with your hands in the 10-2 position right?

    Didn't think so :wink: ... it helps but ultimately doesn't make that much difference.

    Um... how else do people drive?

    You still do that? And push pull steering too presumably?

    Bizarre. You're the only one I've ever met!
  • Littigator wrote:
    Thank you everyone for your oh so positive feedback, particularly on the grammar FFS. I am well aware that it's much easier to just nit pick and criticise than come up with useful counter-suggestions but I hadn't realised quite how one sided it was going to be.

    As for the letter Always Tyred, those are my opinions and it has already been sent thank you very much. If you disagree send your own damn letter!

    :evil: I am NOT in a good mood today in case anyone hadn't noticed.

    I thought you were inviting comments. I don't disagree with the general sentiment, just the concept of a cycle license. We'd have to pay as well, of course. It would be nice if it were possible for such a scheme to work, but for purely pragmatic reasons in a profoundly and irrevocably anti-cycling culture, its a bad idea.

    Not much sense in me sending letters to anyone other than Alex Salmond, I'm afraid. I live in far north greater beyond London, which is just outside London itself, in a suburb called Edinburgh.
  • If we are licenced it will end up with us paying a small fortune to Boris or G Browns tax collectors.
    And we'll lose the sense of freedom we have on a bike.

    A big no to bike licences from me!
  • biondino wrote:
    Clever Pun wrote:
    So that's covered... but from what you've said above you still drive with your hands in the 10-2 position right?

    Didn't think so :wink: ... it helps but ultimately doesn't make that much difference.

    Um... how else do people drive?

    The Stirling Moss position, with the seat tilted right back.
  • Clever PunClever Pun Posts: 6,778
    biondino wrote:
    Clever Pun wrote:
    So that's covered... but from what you've said above you still drive with your hands in the 10-2 position right?

    Didn't think so :wink: ... it helps but ultimately doesn't make that much difference.

    Um... how else do people drive?

    one hand on the bottom of the wheel looking badass
    on the phone
    shouting at the kids in the back seat
    playing with the stereo
    reprogramming the nav system
    etc etc
    Purveyor of sonic doom

    Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
    Fixed Pista- FCN 5
    Beared Bromptonite - FCN 14
  • I steer with my knees wherever possible.

    (I do this on a bike also).
  • Never start a sentence with "And" lol, sorry, couldn't resist :P
    And what's wrong with that? :wink:

    Stuart
  • Against the test.
    For better road manners all round.
    No criticism of the OP, but it all seems a little too Kafka-esque (I believe that writer's work is required reading for anyone aiming at a career in the legal profession).
    "Consider the grebe..."
  • I did a cycling proficiency course test thing some 20 years ago (God that makes me feel old!) when I was like 8 or something. I didn't really gain much from it partly because I was 8 and also I live in a quiet village. Now in a London context perhaps it could be beneficial especially if car drivers are better educated about cyclist also.
  • I support Littigator's desire to do something about the risks but I'm with Always Tyred in not supporting the idea of a licence for the following reasons
      In my experience the possession of a licence doesn't convince me of the road worthiness of many drivers that I come across on my daily commute! There is plenty of training out there - and a lot of it free or subsidised. It needs to be promoted more Compulsory licences would put many current cyclists and many potential cyclists off Licences won't be free. Cycling is a cheap alternative means of transport for a lot of people. The licensing system would change that forever. We'd have number plates next and so it would go on... From a purely selfish point of view I would not get a licence. My sight is not good enough for me to get a driving licence. I'm therefore confined to the misery and vaguaries of public transport. Rediscovering my bike and building up the confidence to commute by using quiet routes or those with cycle paths / bus lanes has set me free. As I'm aware of the potential "contributory negligence" claim that would fall upon me should I be in an accident so I'm well lit (illuminous jacket!) and cautious and most of all curtious to the people I share the road with.

    What I think we need to do is to properly promote existing cycle training and greater awareness of the risks (though of course we have to balance that without scaring people off with inflated fears of the dangers). To challenge thos cyclists who give the majority of us a bad name. To educate drivers effectively - I do think making drivers (and indeed local authority road planners / engineers) go out on bikes now and again woud be a good start.

    TCS
    Pain is only weakness leaving the body
  • A cycling test would not necessarily raise the standard of cycling.

    You've seen how many bad drivers there are on the roads, 99% of those have passed a 'test', then ignore all the rules and drive as they like.
    --
    Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails
  • dondaredondare Posts: 2,113
    If all the existing laws were enforced deaths on the road would drop to double figures. If they can't be enforced then more legislation won't help. The problem is not that cyclists don't have a licence to ride; but that motorists routinely get away with all manner of offences and expect to be able to do so. Any attempt to enforce even a simple speed limit is reagarded as nothing more than a cynical ruse to further "tax the motorist". Almost every driver I see is using a mobile phone.

    As far as HGVs are concerned, I know the risks and I know that just because I can see a lorry doesn't mean that the driver can see me. I also realise that in the real world a lorry driver can't check all the ingenious mirrors and Fresnel lenses that can be fitted to cover some of the blind spots, which is why I don't believe that all types of vehicles should be permitted on all roads; some should be HGV free. A new cyclist cannot appreciate the dangers that these vehicles bring to the road and a compulsory training/testing/licencing scheme will discourage cycling. Quite simply, roads are intended to be a mechanism that allow quick, convenient and safe movement of people and commerce, not rivers of death where only the highly skilled and strong can survive. Don't demand that cyclists become competent enough to stay alive, demand that the roads are safe enough for the incompetent to survive.
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • dondare wrote:
    If all the existing laws were enforced deaths on the road would drop to double figures. If they can't be enforced then more legislation won't help. The problem is not that cyclists don't have a licence to ride; but that motorists routinely get away with all manner of offences and expect to be able to do so. Any attempt to enforce even a simple speed limit is reagarded as nothing more than a cynical ruse to further "tax the motorist". Almost every driver I see is using a mobile phone.

    As far as HGVs are concerned, I know the risks and I know that just because I can see a lorry doesn't mean that the driver can see me. I also realise that in the real world a lorry driver can't check all the ingenious mirrors and Fresnel lenses that can be fitted to cover some of the blind spots, which is why I don't believe that all types of vehicles should be permitted on all roads; some should be HGV free. A new cyclist cannot appreciate the dangers that these vehicles bring to the road and a compulsory training/testing/licencing scheme will discourage cycling. Quite simply, roads are intended to be a mechanism that allow quick, convenient and safe movement of people and commerce, not rivers of death where only the highly skilled and strong can survive. Don't demand that cyclists become competent enough to stay alive, demand that the roads are safe enough for the incompetent to survive.

    New to the forum - where's the giant thumbsup gif??? Spot on. Just look at the number of papers and motoring organisations / tv pundits who support the argument that speed cameras should be visible so that drviers know where they are. Wrong - speed signs should be clear so that drivers are not unfairly caught but all cameras should be hidden. Can a shoplifter cite as a defence that the shop keeper hadn't told him where the CCTV cameras and security guards were??? :roll:
    Pain is only weakness leaving the body
  • sem69sem69 Posts: 106
    A big NO to bike licensing and testing from me.

    1. No one wants to be forced to take a test, they'd either ride illegally without a license or wouldn't ride at all.
    2. It would end up costing us money to take the test or pay for a license
    3. It would be impossible to police
    4. Discouraging cycling in this way would do more harm than good to the nations health

    Advice on riding safely should be more widely available and voluntary courses would be good. But anything compulsory would be a bad idea IMO.
  • sem69 wrote:
    4. Discouraging cycling in this way would do more harm than good to the nations health

    And, 5, I think that it has been shown that the greater the level of cycling in the population, the lower the accident rate. Anything that potentially reduces cycling therefore has the potential to reduce cycling safety; the opposite of the intent.

    Much better, in my opinion, to make experiencing other modes of transport (of which cycling should be one) a requirement for getting a licence for any. That would at least ensure that all car, motorbike and HGV drivers have at least a tiny level of appreciation for the cyclists with whom they share the road...

    _
  • Not everyone is physically capable of riding a bike. But you are right - perhaps people should be made to wear a yellow jacket and stand in the gutter of a busy A-road instead?
  • richkrichk Posts: 583
    Said no, but I've got no objections to all road related laws/rules etc being enforced much more rigidly...
    There is no secret ingredient...
  • chuckcorkchuckcork Posts: 1,471
    Drivers licences are a requirement, as are 3rd party insurance and MOT's, yet plenty drive without one of these (or all).

    Driving safely with due regard to traffic laws, road conditions and with consideration for others and particularly vulnerable road users is also the law, but sadly it is unenforced, and is in retrospect subject to an inordinate number of excuses dreamed up by the legal profession, e.g. I didn't see him, because he was wearing blue with his head down, which basically mean it is legal to kill someone if you didn't mean to.

    Enforcement of existing laws should be the priority, not creating more unenforcable laws that will be just another excuse for drivers to run us off the road.
    'Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that caught the cycling craze....
  • sc999cssc999cs Posts: 596
    I think every motorist should be forced to learn on two wheels first before gaining a car license - even if only a 50cc moped. I just seem to think that two wheeled road users tend to be more aware of what's going on than those people who have only ever used cars. (Ignoring the Darwinian misfits who are a danger to themselves regardless of transport mode chosen).
    Steve C
  • mswmsw Posts: 313
    Much better, in my opinion, to make experiencing other modes of transport (of which cycling should be one) a requirement for getting a licence for any. That would at least ensure that all car, motorbike and HGV drivers have at least a tiny level of appreciation for the cyclists with whom they share the road...

    I was talking to a cabbie a few weeks ago who suggested this - he thought that doing the Knowledge on a little 50cc scooter had made him a much better driver, especially because he could appreciate how vulnerable cyclists felt. Good idea I reckon.

    Compulsion bad, proper enforcement of existing road laws good. Can't you already be pulled over for cycling dangerously? A friend of mine was fined by the police for RLJing about 10 years ago; fine by me.

    When I'm In Charge: Voluntary (but also cheap and widely accessible i.e. subsidized) training for cyclists, plus a section of the other tests (car, HGV, PCV) specifically dealing with cyclists/motorcyclists.
    "We're not holding up traffic. We are traffic."
  • sc999cs wrote:
    I think every motorist should be forced to learn on two wheels first before gaining a car license - even if only a 50cc moped. I just seem to think that two wheeled road users tend to be more aware of what's going on than those people who have only ever used cars. (Ignoring the Darwinian misfits who are a danger to themselves regardless of transport mode chosen).
    i agree, after cycling everywhere now im learning to drive i have been told i am much more aware than other people my instructor has taught, i think this is due to how aware you have to be when cycling
  • MoonCircuitMoonCircuit Posts: 93
    edited October 2008
    Sounds like a stealth tax to me. Is he a labour mayor, don't give him ideas, if you can call it an idea, it's more of a capitulation. This prehistoric issue was resolved years ago in favour of cycle lanes in case you hadn't noticed.

    Two truths: 1) Accidents happen and 2) Politicians love to be seen to be stopping people from dying. Drivers are surrounded by steel cages, crumple zones and airbags and hundreds die every year. A bicycle license will not protect you from the wheels of a truck. Do me a favour, when a cyclist is killed don't go to a politician asking him to hand down some sort of power of invulnerability, they will just tax the rest of us.
    Cycling, it has it's ups and downs.
  • CunobelinCunobelin Posts: 11,792
    A cycling test would not necessarily raise the standard of cycling.

    You've seen how many bad drivers there are on the roads, 99% of those have passed a 'test', then ignore all the rules and drive as they like.

    My opinion exactly...

    I have no problem with this type of education per se..... providing that works

    In the same way as evasion of insurance and tax is rife (10% - 20%) we need to see why education doesn't work within the present system before extending a scheme to new groups
    <b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
    He that buys flesh buys many bones.
    He that buys eggs buys many shells,
    But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
    (Unattributed Trad.)
  • always_tyredalways_tyred Posts: 4,965
    Cunobelin wrote:
    A cycling test would not necessarily raise the standard of cycling.

    You've seen how many bad drivers there are on the roads, 99% of those have passed a 'test', then ignore all the rules and drive as they like.

    My opinion exactly...

    I have no problem with this type of education per se..... providing that works

    In the same way as evasion of insurance and tax is rife (10% - 20%) we need to see why education doesn't work within the present system before extending a scheme to new groups

    Its more like 6% I think.
  • feelfeel Posts: 800
    Underscore wrote:
    sem69 wrote:
    4. Discouraging cycling in this way would do more harm than good to the nations health

    And, 5, I think that it has been shown that the greater the level of cycling in the population, the lower the accident rate. Anything that potentially reduces cycling therefore has the potential to reduce cycling safety; the opposite of the intent.


    _
    The most sensible thing i have read on this subject, well said that man... woman ... person ... thing :oops:
    We are born with the dead:
    See, they return, and bring us with them.
  • spen666spen666 Posts: 17,709
    all this idea will do is create another barrier to cycling and help reduce the number of people who cycle
    Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
    Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

    Twittering @spen_666
Sign In or Register to comment.