ShareTheRoadUK

rick_chasey

Pwnage.

airbag

Kieran_Burns wrote:

As cyclists we do not need permission to use the road. Nor do we need permission to walk on them, or ride a bloody horse. We have that RIGHT.

Doesn't mean we should have the right - I highly doubt any society sees cycling as a fundamental freedom in the way walking is. A sensible position might be a hierarchical scheme like with automatic cars, a car license (requiring a more demanding test) is also a bike license but not vice versa, with U16s (say) being exempt. That way the only people for whom cycling is made more difficult are those who haven't already demonstrated knowledge of the highway code (this, of course, makes the extremely dodgy assumption that the current driving test is an adequate test of knowledge)

I'd still be against it though - bikeability in all schools, bike-focused roads and improving the standard of drivers will almost certainly represent much better benefit/cost to society for the forseeable future. Of course if motor-related injuries plummet and the number of cyclists skyrockets, the result may well change, but that probably won't happen for a while.

And of course, any scheme concocted by insurers as a PR stunt is highly likely to be shit - I'm suprised that people seem suprised at an insurance company coming out with half-arsed marketing. That's... what they do. Apart from insure people, obviously.

Slowbike wrote:

What - no mention of HELMETS?

quite

Kieran_Burns

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pwnage.

ummm.... more like: knobbage

Northwind

That's going right in my sig.

Seriously though, this is absolutely absurd from Future... Like it or not this is a business website, an advert and extension of the magazines, and now it's being used to promote an anti-cylist message. Leaving aside whether mandatory licencing for cyclists is a good idea (of course it isn't, it's moronic), what retard made that call?

Embarassing u-turn time I reckon. Also, wee in Lineker's shoes.

walkingbootweather

I'd never really thought of Gary Lineker as a cyclist. He's more of a fan of Walkers.....

Drfabulous0

I'm fully in favour of compulsory bike training and licensing, but one should have to hold the bike license for at least 2 years before being able to apply for a moped/scooter license which should then be held for a further 2 years before applying for a car license. In a couple of generations about 2/3 of drivers (that's how many actually have a license) should have some cycling experience.

Actually maybe we should start by enforcing compulsory licensing for motorists. Can't start the car without inserting the license for example.

rick_chasey

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pwnage.

ummm.... more like: knobbage

Sense the sarcastic tone .

BelgianBeerGeek

Northwind wrote:

That's going right in my sig.

And mine.

walkingbootweather

Drfabulous0 wrote:

I'm fully in favour of compulsory bike training and licensing, but one should have to hold the bike license for at least 2 years before being able to apply for a moped/scooter license which should then be held for a further 2 years before applying for a car license. In a couple of generations about 2/3 of drivers (that's how many actually have a license) should have some cycling experience.

Actually maybe we should start by enforcing compulsory licensing for motorists. Can't start the car without inserting the license for example.

good point. Well argued.

The main thing I picked out of the Open Letter was

the open letter wrote:

Our research shows that people who consider themselves to be both cyclists and motorists are consistently better informed when it comes to cycle safety.

Note they don't claim their research to show compulsory training leads to being better informed, but practical experience does. The answer therefore is surely to promote more practical experience of cycling amongst motorists. Requiring them to have training or a licence before hand is likely to achieve exactly the opposite.

Widgey

Compulsory bike training and licensing, whatever you dress it up as it wont work. If you ever watch the traffic/road/police action things on the tv you will still get the same story of "this driver has no license, no insurance etc"

I can remember doing my Bikeability at school and it was utter rubbish added to the fact I was about 10, so things have been forgotten over the years. We went onto our school playground and had a "pretend road scenario" and from this we were expected to be let loose?! It was a good thing that I had been on many rides with my Dad, mostly off road, but you still pick up a good understanding and learn the rules.

Everyone has seen someone do something stupid, and they will continually do stupid things as long as they shall live. Whether that is speed, go through red lights, cut up someone, not look, ride on pavements. People need to look in the mirror and change themselves before excepting to get others to change.

bails87

Slowbike wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Cycle training is fine,

Depends in what form ... and if it's compulsory

Having it taught as part of the National Curriculum is fine IMO. Don't make completion or 'passing' of it a requirement to be on the roads though, but make an effort to teach safe cycling.

jds_1981

We did some sort of bike training at junior school. I've forgotten all of it apart from that sill arm wave thing you're meant to do when pulling over.. You can imagine how many times I've used that.

Would be better if repeated a few times in senior school. Much more likely to remember.

jds_1981

Oh, the second thing I remember is being told to walk home rather than cycle as my handle bars didn't have bar ends in & the trainer insisted I was in severe danger of being skewered if I fell off.. How stupid was that..

walkingbootweather

In a parallel universe should horses be allowed on public roads?

jonomc4

OK I have what I think is a potential solution that should suit everyone and hopefully increase the use of cycling.
So here goes:

When you take you car driving test there is a 3rd part which will be a cycling test. You have to pass this like the theory test to get your driving license, therefore we know that everyone who has a driving license also has a bike license. This will mean there is no cost for licenses, there is also the additional help that it will mean that people will get a taster of using a bike and therefore help to increase bike use potentially for some.

The other advantage is that it will increase all motorists understanding of the issues cyclists face and will also help reduce the number of awful cyclists on the road (yes I know not all but we are talking about %'s here and we are not going to help everyone).

With respect to children and non drivers, we should make the bikeability course as part of the school curriculum. Once again this is only basic but it will mean at least people get some training.

All of the above is not going to cost a great deal more and fits in within the current systems we have in place. Yes it will increase the costs of getting a driving license but it will be minimal compared to the overall costs you have to pay. No it will not provide a total coverage on training, but it will be a significant step forward and will reduce the number of bad drivers and cyclists - at the same time it will not deter an adult who doesn't have a car license from cycling as it will not be compulsory. It is all about improving the situation you will not get the perfect solution - just as nowadays there are a number of drivers on the road without the correct training.

cookdn

BikeRadar now appear to have pulled their article. It was on this URL which is reporting "Article Not Found":

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/gary-lineker-and-bikeradar-back-ingenies-road-safety-campaign-35017/

Best regards
David

bails87

Playing devil's advocate....

What about motorcyclists? Should they have to do the bike test first? And should drivers have to do time on a motorbike and get that licence before they can get a car licence?

jds_1981

cookdn wrote:

BikeRadar now appear to have pulled their article. It was on this URL which is reporting "Article Not Found":

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/gary-lineker-and-bikeradar-back-ingenies-road-safety-campaign-35017/

Best regards
David

I couldn't find GLs twitter page either. But that's probably me not knowing anything about twitter

Kieran_Burns

cookdn wrote:

BikeRadar now appear to have pulled their article. It was on this URL which is reporting "Article Not Found":

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/gary-lineker-and-bikeradar-back-ingenies-road-safety-campaign-35017/

Best regards
David

That's hilarious! Mine was only first of many people complaining about the article.

Retraction on the way methinks... I bet they didn't think it through when they saw the campaign and missed the compulsory training bit.

jonomc4

I think that cyclist and motorbikers face many of the same issues (more people on motorbikes have accidents than cyclists - my bother ended up in a wheelchair for life from a motorbike accident). If a car driver is aware of the issue of cyclists I think it will help with their safety regarding motorbikes as well. I think the the issues facing motorbikers and cyclists are too similar to make the training less relevant - on the other hand there could be a lot to be said for motorbikers learning road craft on a slower push bike for the first couple of lessons.

Forgot to mention - there would obviously be some car drivers who would not be able to use a bike (e.g. disabled people) so obviously there would be a need for some dispensations.

rick_chasey

Sad times.

cookdn

cookdn wrote:

BikeRadar now appear to have pulled their article. It was on this URL which is reporting "Article Not Found":

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/gary-lineker-and-bikeradar-back-ingenies-road-safety-campaign-35017/

Best regards
David

For the benefit of anybody that didn't see it you can access the article and many of the comments at Google's cache:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.bikeradar.com/news/article/gary-lineker-and-bikeradar-back-ingenies-road-safety-campaign-35017/

Best regards
David

Widgey

Bails - should children have to pass a test ensuring they can walk? When does it stop?

cookdn

jds_1981 wrote:

I couldn't find GLs twitter page either. But that's probably me not knowing anything about twitter

https://twitter.com/GaryLineker

Best regards
David

bails87

Widgey wrote:

Bails - should children have to pass a test ensuring they can walk? When does it stop?

Like I said, I was playing devils advocate. I think it's more driver and cyclist education is a good thing. But (again, the devil's advocate position is in italics) why is cycling special? Why should everyone who drives have to have also learn to ride a bike, but not a motorbike, or a horse, or rollerblades, or like you say, prove that they've walked X miles to experience life as a pedestrian?


I do like the idea of it though.

Or maybe reduced insurance for people who've done the higher levels of bikeability training.

Dr U Idh

If you still want to see what the fuss was about...

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... ign-35017/

Widgey

I only meant to jest Bails Its a downward spiral scenario.

Or maybe with all this extra testing, there would be more jobs created and less accidents..

daviesee

Petrol at £20 per litre. That would sort it. Moving on.......


Yes. I am jesting. There is no ideal fix-it-all solution. And licenses is certainly not it.

bails87

Widgey wrote:

I only meant to jest Bails Its a downward spiral scenario..

Don't worry, my post was tongue in cheek too.

I wouldn't be against cycling being included in the driving test, but so many other groups could claim that they should be included too.

rick_chasey

Point is a push bike doesn't quite pose the same threat to everyone as a motorised box of metal that weighs a good tonne or two and can easily get up to 70mph.

That's the point. Car drivers don't like it because they feel cyclists all over the place makes them more likely to hurt someone and get blamed for it. The anger people get stems from a fear that if they do hit a cyclist, it's going to be pretty sh!t for them.

This will always remain when cars and bikes spend a lot of time sharing the same space, which, let's be honest, is mainly urban areas and busy roads.