Cycling commuter test

DonDaddyD

I’m going to throw the following out there for all to consider:

“Just because you can ride a bike doesn’t mean you are capable of riding on the main road to work.”

Ok, firstly I'm not accusing cyclists of being solely responsible for road accidents involving cyclists. In some situations YES it is the cyclists fault. In others it is completely the fault of the driver or pedestrian.

With the ever increasing number of cyclists, vehicles and people commuting should it now be compulsory for cyclists to take a proficiency test if they wish to commute in rush hour traffic? (At this stage I’m not trying to discuss how this would be implemented or monitored).

Personally I can see the difference between an experienced commuter and cyclists who completely understands hand signals and such. The former is confident, experienced, skilful, understands space, has the ability to look over their shoulder regularly and is able to ride at ambient traffic speed (the speed at which your safest). . The latter looks as though they recently took their cycling proficiency test.

Neither of these types of cyclists bothers me. Nor am I concerned if I’m following behind or just in front of them. It’s the new to cycling and commuting cyclists that do. The ones that wobble every time they pedal, who swerve uncontrollably into traffic, who never look behind them when going around a parked vehicle or bus, who cannot cycle in a straight line, who are incredibly slow yet insist on taking up not a primary cycling position but a primary road position – to name a few things.

Its situations related to poor judgment, lack of knowlegdge and/or experience that makes me feel that, yes I want more cyclists on the road. But I also want there to be a campaign informing people about the dramatic changes to inner city roads.

I feel road users and pedestrians need to be more vigilant about other road users and pedestrians.

Due to the sharp increase in cyclists, motorists should be made more aware of the importance of checking blind spots, indicating, giving room when overtaking, not to swinging their car doors out and accelerating from the lights if there is a cyclist in front or either side of them.

I also feel that the same approach should be done for cyclists.

You can’t just suddenly jump on a bike at 20something and because you learned to ride a bike at 9 expect to get to work safely, without learning new skills, road safety specific to cycling and the importance of it.

While there is information out there for cyclists more exposure to the importance of using the right lights at night, use of signals etc is needed.

The same can be applied to pedestrians as well, they are solely at fault for stepping out onto the road unexpectedly or from behind a vehicle that restricts their view and the ability to see them.

Commuting has been fine for me; I’ve found bike radar and use this site as a means of increasing my own ability to be safe by sharing my experience with the experience of others. Not everyone has this luxury and regardless of how many are on this site it’s not representative of the number of commuters in London alone.

The roads are clearly changing and its time all were made aware.

Rich158

It would be difficult to police and if voluntary would only affect those who obey the law anyway. After all if someone is going to RLJ, ride on the pavement, and ride with a general disregard for other road users and pedestrians, then I suspect that they'll not be interested in taking a proficiency test

DonDaddyD

Rich158 wrote:

It would be difficult to police and if voluntary would only affect those who obey the law anyway. After all if someone is going to RLJ, ride on the pavement, and ride with a general disregard for other road users and pedestrians, then I suspect that they'll not be interested in taking a proficiency test

I'm not sure how such a thing would be monitored. But I consider this. Even on a decline, there are more vehicles on the road than ever before in my lifetime. I'm a pretty experienced cyclists. I learned to ride before I was 10 and have cycled, to school and nearly every job I've had up to now.

If my brother who is 16 decides to ride to his job having never really taken a bike beyond the end of his road he could. But what is there to evaluate that he is safe and teach him how to be safe while on London's busy main roads?

Rich158

I agree, and the problem get's worse the younger kids get, I never let my kids ride on the road alone up to about the age of 14/15 when they wanted their independance anyway, and I hope by that time I'd instilled enough road sense into them to keep them safe.

What do you do however when someone fails the test?

As has been mentioned in another thread simply taking a course doesn't guarantee any road sense, you see bad drivers every day who have passed their driving test, yet they're still allowed on the roads to maim and kill.

Bassjunkieuk

Regardless of how hard it would be to monitor and run a compulsory scheme as you've already said your not going into those details I think we only have to look at other road users who have to take a compulsory test and in theory should be nice and easy to track down should they do anything wrong - CAR DRIVERS.

As can be seen my drivers of the motorised vehicle variety, passing a test and getting a piece of paper and a nice little plastic card with your grubby mug on it does not bestow god like, law abiding road skills upon the person in question. I see plenty of drivers speeding, jumping red lights and using mobile phones so I don't see why test would necessarily help with cyclist.

I do however fully support the idea of cyclist training as I'd hope that most new cyclist would only ride on roads where they feel comfortable, unfortunately this is rarely the case. I'd hope that the training is based on the excellent Roadcraft book, as having had this out from the local library and pretty much read it cover to cover, found that it provides an excellent foundation of becoming a much safer and more confident rider, basically if your on here and haven't read it get yourself down to your local library and hire a copy as some of the advice in there can even be helpful for experienced cyclists!

I can still remember doing my cycling proficiency when I was at primary school but as that was about 16 years ago now I've pretty much forgotten it all but still consider myself an experienced cyclist, much like DDD I have been cycle commuting for the past 2 1/2 years into London and before that I was using my bike for much shorter commutes to 2 previous jobs spanning about 4 years.

DonDaddyD

Bassjunkieuk wrote:

As can be seen my drivers of the motorised vehicle variety, passing a test and getting a piece of paper and a nice little plastic card with your grubby mug on it does not bestow god like, law abiding road skills upon the person in question.

You're right. Taking the test doesn't mean you'll be a good driving. But this lack of guarantee doesn't mean that all drivers shouldn't take the test or don't need to.

There will always be good and bad drivers. Learning to drive and passing the test makes you arguably a safer driver than when you didn't know how to drive but not a safe driver overall. The same logic can be applied to cyclists.

I do believe that some people shouldn't be allowed to drive. Equally I've seen some people who simply shouldn't ride a bike on main roads.

I do however fully support the idea of cyclist training as I'd hope that most new cyclist would only ride on roads where they feel comfortable, unfortunately this is rarely the case. I'd hope that the training is based on the excellent Roadcraft book, as having had this out from the local library and pretty much read it cover to cover, found that it provides an excellent foundation of becoming a much safer and more confident rider, basically if your on here and haven't read it get yourself down to your local library and hire a copy as some of the advice in there can even be helpful for experienced cyclists!

Sound advice, and I need to start buying cycling books including that one.

Rich158

The thing to remember for any driving related test is that you are judged as meeting the minimum standard at that moment in time, whereas most people seem to think, wow I've passed my test, I must be a good driver.
The best piece of advice ever given to me was that you don't start learning to drive untill you've passed your test, and then you never stop. Everything else up to that point is just teaching you how to pass the test.

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rich158 wrote:

It would be difficult to police and if voluntary would only affect those who obey the law anyway. After all if someone is going to RLJ, ride on the pavement, and ride with a general disregard for other road users and pedestrians, then I suspect that they'll not be interested in taking a proficiency test

I'm not sure how such a thing would be monitored. But I consider this. Even on a decline, there are more vehicles on the road than ever before in my lifetime. I'm a pretty experienced cyclists. I learned to ride before I was 10 and have cycled, to school and nearly every job I've had up to now.

If my brother who is 16 decides to ride to his job having never really taken a bike beyond the end of his road he could. But what is there to evaluate that he is safe and teach him how to be safe while on London's busy main roads?

This sounds like a cally for the nanny state to protect the foolish from themselves

always_tyred

I'm very much for sensible training being widely available and free in schools (possibly compulsory if you are going to cycle to school) but to make it compulsory for everyone else is about as much use as a cat license. It will stop people from having a cat and cost a lot of money, but the people you WANT to stop having a cat will have one anyway and terrorise the local neighbourhood (shaggin' an that).

biondino

In theory yes, but in practice it's unpoliceable and would drastically reduce the number of cyclists if they cracked down.

simple_salmon

What would you do about youngsters riding bikes? Does my 3-year-old need one for his tricycle?

This would be the death knell of getting more people to try cycling to work or for pleasure. Who's going to take a test if they only want to ride to work occasionally? Especially if they just want to try to see if they like it - But these are the people we should be encouraging not putting off.

Surely it is safer to have one less car and one extra bike?

Compulsory training in schools? YES
Voluntary free training at work? YES
Compulsory testing and licences? NO NO NO

roger_merriman

while the numbers have increased it's in terms of % very low. 80% in london is impressive but it's still a very low number over all.

training at school etc is probably a better way than a enforced way.

UnworthyPapaLazaru

Always Tyred wrote:

I'm very much for sensible training being widely available and free in schools (possibly compulsory if you are going to cycle to school) but to make it compulsory for everyone else is about as much use as a cat license. It will stop people from having a cat and cost a lot of money, but the people you WANT to stop having a cat will have one anyway and terrorise the local neighbourhood (shaggin' an that).

Or takin' a shite in yer gairden, ken. The cats likes, no cyclists. That wid be bang oot eh order. In fact it's bang oot eh order who iver is dain' it. Am sure ye kent whit ah meant.

UnworthyPapaLazaru

One should maybe add that one is against the suggestion that cyclists should be required to pass a compulsory proficiency test.

Feltup

I have a driving license which allows me to ride a scooter up to 50cc without the need for a new license but suddenly I should get a license to ride a "scooter" with no engine just pedal power?

I think cycling safety should be taught at schools as early as possible because it is a great way of getting around independantly at minimal expense. In an ideal world all parents should take their kids out and show them how to ride sensibly. Unfortunately we live in an age where 1 in 4 homes is supposed to have a Nintendo Wii and parents are too busy to be able to teach their kids the simple things in life such as reading or riding a bike.

Putting young Billy or Brenda in the front seat of your car and telling them what you doing and why is a good way of showing them how a car driver sees the road combine that with some bike rides and I think people would grow up with a better and safer understanding of the transport environment.

biondino

Feltup, the last time a baby was christened Brenda in the UK was 1971.

Feltup

I bet it was in Newcastle

Clever Pun

the driving test and cbt shows tests don't mean squat

w@nkers will drive that that anyway

rhext

In my opinion:

As a driver, I need to pass a test to prove that I'm competant to control a vehicle has a very high probability of being lethal in the hands of someone who doesn't understand how to drive it and doesn't know the rules of the road. I need to be licensed so that I can be tracked down and prosecuted if I break the rules so blatantly that I put other people at risk. I need to keep my vehicle in a good state of repair because if any of the safety systems are not operating properly I stand a very good chance of killing or injuring someone else. And I need to pay vehicle excise duty to fund the system which is required to ensure that I am properly trained, taxed, insured, and that my vehicle is in a reasonably good state of repair.

As a cyclist, my vehicle has much much lower potential to damage other people. If I'm incompetant, break the rules, don't keep it maintained, don't make myself visible, I tend to be the one who ends up squashed. Sure, there are exceptions, but the risk to the public posed by an 'unregulated' (well, strictly speaking, regulated but largely unenforced) cycling community is minimal compared with that posed by those who drive motor vehicles.

I think a test/registration/insurance scheme would be a daft idea. It would be costly (am I going to be expected to pay another road fund license on top of the two I already pay?), impractical (Do I need to register each of the 8 bikes in the family? Do I need to register my three-year-old's trike?, Does he need a license before he can pedal it around the cul-de-sac in which we live?), and completely disproportionate to the damage that cylists do to society.

If there's a real problem here (and motorists/pedestrian's/other cyclists 'feelings' about the effect of particular behaviours are not necessarily indicative of a real problem despite what lazy journalists think) then there have to be a thousand better ways of solving it than licensing, registration and compulsory insurance.

tarquin_foxglove

simple_salmon Posted
What would you do about youngsters riding bikes? Does my 3-year-old need one for his tricycle?

rhext
Posted: Do I need to register my three-year-old's trike?, Does he need a license before he can pedal it around the cul-de-sac in which we live?

Blimey I hadn't realised the menace of unlicensed 3 year old children on unregistered tricycles was so prevalent.

Isn't there some bright civil servant out there that can save us from this danger?

rhext

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

Blimey I hadn't realised the menace of unlicensed 3 year old children on unregistered tricycles was so prevalent.

Isn't there some bright civil servant out there that can save us from this danger?

You need to get out more. But make sure you don't forget the shin pads.

DonDaddyD

Rhext,

I take your point.

Couple of things, just because a bike isn't as potentially dangerous as a car doesn't mean the potential dangers can or should be overlooked. A cyclists can kill or be killed. That is reason enough to be aware of its dangers. It's like saying "because guns can kill more you need a license for that, but its perfectly fine to walk around with this bow and arrow or knife because they kill less than guns...."

Also I cannot help think that you are overlooking the safety of the cyclist. Knowing how to ride a bike when you were a child doesn't necessarily mean that you can jump on a bike at 20 (so a license for a three year old would be stupid and wasn't what I was saying at all). You can't just suddenly jump on a bike after all those years and expect to be competant and safe on a road during rush hour.

A test, lessons and such doesn't need to apply to a child. I wasn't talking about the process of how it would be monitored.

I was talking about giving commuters (who cycle) who are inexperienced the oppurtunity to become more aware to the importance of being safe on the main road (during a commute) as well as teaching them the skills to be safer whilst on the road (whether they become safer is another issue. No one is saying the driving test makes you a safer driver but it does teach you how to be safe and you are a better driving having passed the test than when you couldn't drive at all).

I also think as the number of cyclists continues to grow, other road users need to be refreshed on how to treat cyclists when they encounter them. I.e. giving more room when overtaking, checking blindspots always.

simple_salmon

DonDaddyD wrote:

I was talking about giving commuters (who cycle) the oppurtunity to become more aware to the importance of being safe on the main road (during a commute) as well as teaching them the skills to be safe.

Offering training is not the same as making a test compulsory. I am 100% behind offering staff cycle training and will be doing so for free to all our staff from Feb 1st. I would, however, probably give up this job if a compulsory test was introduced because it would no longer be possible to encourage people to try something new.

DonDaddyD

simple_salmon wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I was talking about giving commuters (who cycle) the oppurtunity to become more aware to the importance of being safe on the main road (during a commute) as well as teaching them the skills to be safe.

Offering training is not the same as making a test compulsory. I am 100% behind offering staff cycle training and will be doing so for free to all our staff from Feb 1st. I would, however, probably give up this job if a compulsory test was introduced because it would no longer be possible to encourage people to try something new.

I agree.

What job do you do?

rhext

...but my point is also that the cost and complexity of the solution needs to be balanced against the risk to society (as distinct from the risk to the individual engaged in the activity). We don't license mountaineers despite the fact that a fair few inexperienced ones kill themselves every year. We rely on individuals to recognise the risk they run and take appropriate action. And that sort of system appears to me to be appropriate for activities which offer low risk to others, even if they're relatively high risk for participants. At the end of the day we try to keep society as free as possible, and that means (perhaps unfortunately) some people are free to be bloody stupid.

I'm right with you on the desirability of offering training and advice to new commuters, I just don't think that the machinery required to make it compulsory could be justified.

DonDaddyD

rhext wrote:

We don't license mountaineers despite the fact that a fair few inexperienced ones kill themselves every year.

Mountaineers don't engage in their activity in heavily populated area's where their actions may endanger themselves and others. A commuter can potentially both kill himself and others.

We rely on individuals to recognise the risk they run and take appropriate action.

Yes but in a society this is regulated, monitored and enforced by laws so that people have no choice but to take responsibility for their actions for the safety of themselves and others.

And that sort of system appears to me to be appropriate for activities which offer low risk to others, even if they're relatively high risk for participants.

But cycling isn't a singular activity. Certainly not commuting.

At the end of the day we try to keep society as free as possible, and that means (perhaps unfortunately) some people are free to be bloody stupid.

Society is not free at all. Complete freedom would bring anarchy. Society cannot exist under anarchy. Societies only exist (from as small as a family to as large as a country) if everyone accepts mutual responsibility for their actions for the betterment of the whole and the laws/punishments if these are infringed upon. If there was complete freedom.

Giving that commuting is a function of society that involves many not just one, it can be regulated by laws and monitored. People do have to take responsibility for not just for their own personal safety but for the safety of others. This is why fines are now handed out to cyclists who choose to ride on the pavements.

I'm right with you on the desirability of offering training and advice to new commuters, I just don't think that the machinery required to make it compulsory could be justified.[/quote]

simple_salmon

DonDaddyD wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I was talking about giving commuters (who cycle) the oppurtunity to become more aware to the importance of being safe on the main road (during a commute) as well as teaching them the skills to be safe.

Offering training is not the same as making a test compulsory. I am 100% behind offering staff cycle training and will be doing so for free to all our staff from Feb 1st. I would, however, probably give up this job if a compulsory test was introduced because it would no longer be possible to encourage people to try something new.

I agree.

What job do you do?

University Transport Co-ordinator.

rhext

DonDaddyD. I don't disagree with much of what you say. But the point is about proportionality and the effects on the freedom of the individual.

Commuters can indeed kill others, but the fact is that they do so extremely rarely. We already have laws which cover cyclist's behaviours, so if cycle commuter behaviour were to start posing an increased risk to others (as demonstrated by proper risk assessment or actual accident figures, rather than daily mail readers spluttering angrily because a cyclist jumped a red light and got away with it, while they got a £60 fine and a ticket for doing the same thing last week) then the first port of call should perhaps be more enforcement of the rules we have.

I don't argue for complete freedom, but I do believe it important for society to be kept as free as reasonably possible. My point is that testing and licensing would be an impractical and disproportionate response to what appears actually to be an extremely small risk.

simple_salmon

rhext wrote:

DonDaddyD. I don't disagree with much of what you say. But the point is about proportionality and the effects on the freedom of the individual.

Commuters can indeed kill others, but the fact is that they do so extremely rarely. We already have laws which cover cyclist's behaviours, so if cycle commuter behaviour were to start posing an increased risk to others (as demonstrated by proper risk assessment or actual accident figures, rather than daily mail readers spluttering angrily because a cyclist jumped a red light and got away with it, while they got a £60 fine and a ticket for doing the same thing last week) then the first port of call should perhaps be more enforcement of the rules we have.

I don't argue for complete freedom, but I do believe it important for society to be kept as free as reasonably possible. My point is that testing and licensing would be an impractical and disproportionate response to what appears actually to be an extremely small risk.

I agree with you and would add that the dangers posed by the resultant reduction in cyclists and increase in drivers would render such as scheme utterly pointless.

Headhuunter

To implement a system of compulsory testing for cyclists, there would have to be some kind of bike/cyclist registration and licensing to ensure the testing system was adhered to. From there it's a hop, skip and jump to taxation of cyclists and number plates in order to fund and administrate the system.

I certainly agree that some cyclists need some education regarding the rules of the road, but also agree that proportionally, motorists have far more potential to cause death and serious injury which IMO needs addressing before we tinker with the slight threat caused by dangerous cycling.

Also who exactly would have to take and pass the test? Perhaps over 17 year olds, as per the driving test? But what about the majority of people across the UK who own bikes and only use them a couple of days a year for a leisurely ride when the sun comes out? Or those who don't even own bikes but wish to hire them for 1 or 2 days per year? And people who come from overseas on holiday here for a week or 2 and wish to hire a bike? Or racing cyclists here from overseas for an event? Would any/all of these be obliged to pass a road proficiency test? If not, it would make the system even more complex and expensive to maintain.

I think forcing every cyclist over the age of 17 to take a test would remove an extremely accessible form of exercise from most people's reach and would also be counter inuitive at a time whe the government is trying to encourage cycling as a method of commuting. Not only does cycling keep the commuter healthy and fit, but it reduces necessary expenditure on roads through maintanence and repair of damage to road surfaces caused by motor traffic etc. Also in London, the higher the cycling population, the lower the reliance on the Tube, buses and local trains decreasing the need for investment there too.

DonDaddyD

rhext wrote:

DonDaddyD. I don't disagree with much of what you say. But the point is about proportionality and the effects on the freedom of the individual.

Commuters can indeed kill others, but the fact is that they do so extremely rarely. We already have laws which cover cyclist's behaviours, so if cycle commuter behaviour were to start posing an increased risk to others (as demonstrated by proper risk assessment or actual accident figures, rather than daily mail readers spluttering angrily because a cyclist jumped a red light and got away with it, while they got a £60 fine and a ticket for doing the same thing last week) then the first port of call should perhaps be more enforcement of the rules we have.

I don't argue for complete freedom, but I do believe it important for society to be kept as free as reasonably possible. My point is that testing and licensing would be an impractical and disproportionate response to what appears actually to be an extremely small risk.

Perceptions of society and its implied freedom (society is about collective acceptance of actions, reactions, interactions with each other - if I wanted to do something and couldn't because it's not socially acceptable then that isn't freedom) aside I actually agree with you.

It's interesting that many disagree with a legal test but believe that as the number of cycling increase so should the opportunity to enable people to be taught skills to become better cyclists and ride on the road safely. So on some level people do want some form of regulation, perhaps.