If there were to be a cycle test...

coopster_the_1st

...what would it include over and above what is in the car driving test?

Lots of arguments against the cycling community say that cyclists should be tested(was also just raised in the SCR thread). However, when I think in detail about the driving test, I cannot think of what extra should be in a cycle test?

So, what if anything would you include?

Colinthecop

Wheelies probably.

tgotb

OT, but when I'm World Dictator I'm going to make everyone retake their driving test every 5 years. Aswell as failing anyone who can't do the basics, examiners will also point out more advanced areas for improvement...

nich

I would base it on the motorcycle test, not a driving test.

To be honest I can't drive, but do ride a motorcycle - the motorcycle test covers things specific to 2 wheels, like road positioning, defensive riding, shoulder checks.

Seems like everything I learn on the motorbike can be applied to cycling, and visa versa.

EKE_38BPM

I am completely against testing, but I'm all for more training, for cyclists AND drivers.

The fact that delivering cycle training is how I make a living is neither here nor there. Honest.

anthdci

It should be similar to the motorcycle test. To prevent those who don't do it and ride on the pavement instead make a pavement speed limit of 5mph. Should be retested every 10 years which should apply for all cars, bikes etc. Road laws change, its crazy how out of date people can be.

Applespider

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I am completely against testing, but I'm all for more training, for cyclists AND drivers.

Agreed. The free lesson that I had (thanks Southwark) was absolutely fabulous and really helped both my confidence on the roads and taught me lots of useful stuff about positioning and the particular danger spots on my specific commute route. I think anyone who hasn't been on a bike since they were a kid should be very strongly encouraged to do a similar session before they start cycling in traffic again. I can't quite understand why more people (in London at least where it's often free) don't do it.

I'd emphasise the 'dooring' gap and that drivers won't automatically hate you if you're not in the gutter (bearing in mind that many new riders assume they should be there).

I'd reiterate the points about not going down the side of big vehicles - and ideally, I'd want them to do once of those Trading Places sessions just to emphasise that.

I'd tell them not to assume that cycle lanes should always be followed and that it's OK to wait behind a car rather than force your way to an ASL.

I'd like to demonstrate how invisible a ninja cyclist can be at night - just because you can see doesn't mean you can be seen - and why lights/reflectivity are important.

And teach what to watch out for to plan defensively like a gap in stationary traffic at a side road where a car might be flashed through, people walking with a lead and no dog next to them in the park, when to move out left when you're approaching an obstacle in your lane.

To be honest, it's the things that you pick up the more you ride and become second nature.

indyp

I did mine in junior school and had the a metal disc to go on the bars to prove it.

ChuckWoking

nich wrote:

I would base it on the motorcycle test, not a driving test.

Seems like everything I learn on the motorbike can be applied to cycling, and visa versa.

Absolutely.

It's been 10 years since I sold my CB500 but the lessons learned when I had it have stuck and are very applicable to cycling, also highly applicable to driving as well in terms of defensive driving skills.

supersonic

I would teach road awareness at school. Most of us will learn to drive or ride a bike. All of us are pedestrians. Learning about the tarmac environment early on will benefit everyone. Probably a lot more than having to sit an exam working out the volume of a pyramid.

Initialised

Coopster the 1st wrote:

...what would it include over and above what is in the car driving test?

Bikeability level 3?

Surely it should be a pre-requisite for the Manual Transmission Practical Driving Test, if you can't ride a bike you can't drive stick.

Mandatory retest? How about re-tests for any driver involved in a collision, regardless of who their insurance companies choose was "at fault" and short term driving bans rather than points and fines for road traffic offenses, duration of ban determined by damage to persons or property, ban becomes permanent if you're caught breaking it. Get people to think of driving as a privilege with attached responsibilities not a right.

awavey

indyP wrote:

I did mine in junior school and had the a metal disc to go on the bars to prove it.

^^^this ...though my school were cheapskates and we only got the certificate (still got it), not the badge/disc

but cor just think how unsafe we must have been doing it out on proper roads with cars travelling past us, all without hi-viz or helmets

unixnerd

How widespread is kids cycle training these days? I know there are groups in Scotland who visit primary schools to offer training but do all schools get it? What about England?

In my day the Police ran the Cycling Proficiency Scheme and I felt it was pretty good.

daviesee

My car license covers me to drive a moped so it should also cover me for a bicycle.

No further testing required.

anthdci

daviesee wrote:

My car license covers me to drive a moped so it should also cover me for a bicycle.

No further testing required.

true, but it really shouldn't. I have had a car license for 10 years but i wouldn't know where to start with a moped. Similarly it is helpful knowing the basic rules of the roads, but cycling is a bit different so a specific course and / or test would be beneficial.

I am under the strong opinion that all motorists should be retested every 10 years, so much changes in that time. I know some people from an older generation who passed their test 40+ years ago that only had to do a quick once round the block and that was enough for a pass. They are no dangerous drivers, but because they have their license they are fine in the eyes of the law.

arran77

I passed my cycling proficiency test when I was a kid, no more testing needed here thanks

davmaggs

Initialised wrote:

Mandatory retest? How about re-tests for any driver involved in a collision, regardless of who their insurance companies choose was "at fault" and short term driving bans rather than points and fines for road traffic offenses, duration of ban determined by damage to persons or property, ban becomes permanent if you're caught breaking it. Get people to think of driving as a privilege with attached responsibilities not a right.

I can think of several cases where this would be daft. My father was stationary when another car drove into his, so should he be packed off for re-education at his expense? Another close friend was 10 metres away from his car when someone drove into it (ambulance chasers still wanted him to put in a claim), should he be forced to pay too?

Whilst it's a fun debate, I'd say that it relies on the assumption that exams will solve the ills of the road. Clearly not true as novice drivers pass based on some reading, and they are no-where near the competence of someone who passed ten years earlier. As for re-tests every five years, what evidence is there at all that it would save lives (even if we chose to ignore the economics)?

greg66_tri_v2.0

TGOTB wrote:

OT, but when I'm World Dictator I'm going to make everyone retake their driving test every 5 years. Aswell as failing anyone who can't do the basics, examiners will also point out more advanced areas for improvement...

I have thought this for a long time too. One counter argument I've heard is that it wouldn't be fair if someone whose livelihood depending on driving (eg bus/truck driver) failed. Errr, why wouldn't it?

The thing I'd incorporate into a driving test and a cycling test is a good understanding of the concept of a safety zone/bubble around you; what shape it is, how it varies with speed and conditions, and so on (if this is part of the driving test now, fair enough. It wasn't when I learned to drive).

daviesee

Very true davmaggs.

Just because people pass a test, it doesnt follow that they will obey the law, or use common sense.

As can be seen on the roads on a daily basis.

As an aside, I see that there have been two more cyclist deaths in London in the past two days, yet none of the usual threads.
Blasé or numb?

davmaggs

daviesee wrote:

Very true davmaggs.

Just because people pass a test, it doesnt follow that they will obey the law, or use common sense.

We all know that, and yet people still insist that more tests and more exams would be the big solution.

Of course, they'd been then cursing when they have to pay the fees, spend on books and lose a day's pay to pass an exam that they will declare as useless box ticking.

greg66_tri_v2.0

davmaggs wrote:

As for re-tests every five years, what evidence is there at all that it would save lives (even if we chose to ignore the economics)?

This is a good example of an issue that the current fixation with evidence-based decision throws up. It can be used to sterilise novelty, on the footing that novel ideas (necessarily) have no evidence to back them.

greg66_tri_v2.0

davmaggs wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Very true davmaggs.

Just because people pass a test, it doesnt follow that they will obey the law, or use common sense.

We all know that, and yet people still insist that more tests and more exams would be the big solution.

That's as much an argument in favour of abolishing the driving test completely as it is to not introduce retesting; you do realise that, don't you?

It's a pretty weak argument whichever way you choose to deploy it, but it works both ways.

rick_chasey

Indeed. Best way to find evidence is to try it out.


Cycling proficiency was compulsory at my primary school.

veronese68

daviesee wrote:

Very true davmaggs.

Just because people pass a test, it doesnt follow that they will obey the law, or use common sense.

As can be seen on the roads on a daily basis.

As an aside, I see that there have been two more cyclist deaths in London in the past two days, yet none of the usual threads.
Blasé or numb?

Mentioned them in the SCR thread, I think some of the comments there may have prompted this thread. I didn't want to start a new thread about it. I think it's usually the worst time of year due to people forgetting how to drive or ride in the dark after the clocks change, plus a variety of other factors that conspire at this time of year.
Answering the question of this thread; I would not be in favour of mandatory testing, training is undoubtedly a good idea though. I also think having gone through motorcycle training has helped me. I tend to pass stationary traffic by filtering down the outside as if I were on a motorcycle, I feel much safer than riding down the left hand side of traffic. That probably comes from years of riding motorbikes.

slowbike

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

As for re-tests every five years, what evidence is there at all that it would save lives (even if we chose to ignore the economics)?

This is a good example of an issue that the current fixation with evidence-based decision throws up. It can be used to sterilise novelty, on the footing that novel ideas (necessarily) have no evidence to back them.

The advantages of retests are that it encourages refreshed learning and the exam tests that you've at least paid attention to what driving standards are required. It could also bring the driver up to date with the current requirements.
And ultimately - remove some dangerous drivers from the road.

TBH, some cyclists could do with (re)educating too.

but the problem is legislation clobbers all - the many who are perfectly ok as well as the few that need it ...

markhewitt1978

Obviously you should only pass if you can complete a 100mph course in no less than 18mph average.

davmaggs

Slowbike wrote:

The advantages of retests are that it encourages refreshed learning and the exam tests that you've at least paid attention to what driving standards are required. It could also bring the driver up to date with the current requirements.
And ultimately - remove some dangerous drivers from the road.

Except all these are unfounded assertions. Admittedly you've used the caveat "could", which normally means that it's a really weak argument.

edit; typo

davmaggs

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

That's as much an argument in favour of abolishing the driving test completely as it is to not introduce retesting; you do realise that, don't you?

It's a pretty weak argument whichever way you choose to deploy it, but it works both ways.

Actually it doesn't work 'both ways' at all, you have presented an entirely false premise.

It is entirely possible to say that a driving test ensures a minimum standard of mechanical competence is achieved (enough to be safe) along with a certain level of legal/rules understanding. It is entirely possible to go to an extreme and say that increasing the severity of this test massively (e.g 10,000 of supervised track driving or something) would make the roads safer, and to use this as a scale to work out where the trade-offs are in cost & effort vs risk reduction.

Advocates for re-testing are in effect saying that the safer people on the road (experienced vs nearly qualified insurance figures) should resit an exam that can be passed by a 17 year old without thousands of hours of experience. It does not make sense at all.

daviesee

Slowbike wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

As for re-tests every five years, what evidence is there at all that it would save lives (even if we chose to ignore the economics)?

This is a good example of an issue that the current fixation with evidence-based decision throws up. It can be used to sterilise novelty, on the footing that novel ideas (necessarily) have no evidence to back them.

The advantages of retests are that it encourages refreshed learning and the exam tests that you've at least paid attention to what driving standards are required. It could also bring the driver up to date with the current requirements.
And ultimately - remove some dangerous drivers from the road.

TBH, some cyclists could do with (re)educating too.

but the problem is legislation clobbers all - the many who are perfectly ok as well as the few that need it ...

As an opposing view, I had all my car crashes within 5 years of passing my test. None since.

I agree with training though. Everyone should have to take a shot at all the modes of transport to make them aware of the other persons view.(Probably badly worded).

reformedfatty

I'd make it so they had to complete a couple of levels of Paperboy

rolf_f

The logistics of retesting would be horrendous. But I've often thought that a regular retest of the theory could be cheap and practical. At least it might discourage the dimwits who park next to junctions from claiming not to know you shouldn't do it despite the fact that it is blindingly obvious that it massively reduces visibility across a junction.