If there were to be a cycle test...

EKE_38BPM

Initialised wrote:

So EKE 5 or ten years or just a collision/driving offence for the retest?

How I would handle driver retesting:
A year after passing.
Every 10 years up to 60, every 5 to 70, every 2 to 80, daily after that.
After a collision/driving offence.
If I don't like the look of you.

slowbike

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Initialised wrote:

So EKE 5 or ten years or just a collision/driving offence for the retest?

How I would handle driver retesting:
A year after passing.
Every 10 years up to 60, every 5 to 70, every 2 to 80, daily after that.
After a collision/driving offence.
If I don't like the look of you.

I generally oppose testing & retesting - but I can see that right now there is a need for better skills on the road and retesting is one (crude) method of achieving that. If we were to go back to the days of 1 car per family, short journeys and quiet roads then we could reduce the level of skills required. But todays roads are too crowded for that.

veronese68

All this talk about the merits of experience over testing makes me think of my mother in law. She had many years of experience, but was utterly terrifying when behind the wheel. She was given her licence in the war when she was part of the land army as a girl. Never took a test in her life, and boy did it show. Were she alive today she'd be approaching 90 so some old folk may be driving around still that have never sat a test and the only formal training was how to operate the controls.
Thankfully she always used to let me drive when we went to visit her as my wife had told her I was terrified of her driving.

airbag

I'm sort of in favour of retesting, but I must admit some good counterpoints have been made here.

EKE_38BPM -

Do you think people don't know what, for example, ASLs are? I don't have any evidence but I'd be suprised if many genuinely couldn't make an accurate guess, ergo if they're ignoring them it's because they don't think they'd be caught. I expect the woman overtaking you would probably admit, in a neutral setting, that overtaking on a blind bend is a poor thing to do. But when questioned she'd come up with a million and one reasons why what she did is ok. If you really want to change someone's behaviour you need to get them to believe what they did was wrong, which unfortunately is not the same as being logical.

Old drivers come across in road safety terms a bit like lycra louts to me - something people love to moan about, but I've not seen any evidence convincing me they're actually a significant part of the overall problem (Though we can probably expect that to change as the population ages etc).

My hare-brained schemes:

-more police (okay, probably not controversial): even debates I've had with people who have nothing but hate for all cyclists, most will admit there's little meaningful enforcement of driving standards by police, from which you can infer there wouldn't be for cycling either. Nobody wins in that scenario. Again, EKE_38BPM's pulp fiction story - it was a policeman who helped you, not an instructor.

-getting cycling education into schools: not just as a cycle safety thing. It's hardly a novel technique to, when training someone to use dangerous equipment, get them used to the basics on less dangerous stuff - and most of the basics are the same. It's also not novel that people learn pretty well when they're young. People sometimes moan that "you can pass your test today and drive a ferrari tomorrow" (though... good luck with insurance), but the difference in danger to others between car and a bike is far greater than the difference in danger between cars. You can make an effort to get people competent on a bike before letting them at something dangerous without being authoritarian about it and forcing them to do so - indeed, any good government should explore the least authoritarian options first.

-Very much conjecture: we currently require older people to sign a piece of paper affirming they are still confident to drive. Could we extend this? It sounds silly, but people tend to respond better to rules they feel as though they've been a part of. Telling someone "you can't drive unless you do x,y,z" may be functionally the same as "can you agree to do x,y,z in return for being allowed to drive?", but the reaction is different; if I then fail to do x,y,z, and someone reminds me that I agreed to do x,y,z, I haven't just broken the law: I've broken my word. Admittedly, given we'd have to force everyone to sign the same contract, it's doubtful people would view it as something they truly agreed to. Nevertheless, worth exploration at the very least.

-Making mistakes on the road is ok. If you apologise. If you don't, and it was found out to be your fault, get used to the bus. Might not reduce the accidents but at least people would be polite.

-Finally: anyone who buys a bike must write "I will NOT ride down the inside of a lorry at junction under any circumstance" ten thousand times before being allowed to ride it. A sucky and "panicky" workaround maybe, but a necessary one.

Edit: considering the last one is a workaround, it should automatically repeal after five years - with an extra condition that it cannot be invoked again for 100. We have too many "workarounds" that have outstayed their welcome already.

desweller

I'd subject every new driver to a simulated crash at 30mph and 40mph in a sled. Just to highlight the energy involved at relatively slow speeds.

I'm sure that would focus a few minds.

chilling

In theory...

I started to wonder today after a cyclist took umbrage when I pointed out she was riding the wrong way down a one way street, why it is that every road user in the UK has to pass the Highway Code theory test apart from cyclists.

Now I'm not a big fan of licenses for cyclists, but it seems logical that if you are going to use the roads you should be au fait with the law. Every other road user (in theory) has to pass this hurdle before being allowed access so why should cyclists be exempt?

How this could be accomplished without bringing in a cycling license I don't know because whatever form the proof takes I'm sure the government would love to tag on a points for offences system mirroring other road users.

It strikes me though that, in London especially, many cyclists are not drivers and so have had no requirement to read the Highway Code or be familiar with the law that covers them and other road users.

Maybe it would be a useful course that could be taught at secondary school

Thoughts? How can we get cyclists to know the law without giving them a license?

daviesee

chilling wrote:

In theory...

I started to wonder today after a cyclist took umbrage when I pointed out she was riding the wrong way down a one way street, why it is that every road user in the UK has to pass the Highway Code theory test apart from cyclists.

Now I'm not a big fan of licenses for cyclists, but it seems logical that if you are going to use the roads you should be au fait with the law. Every other road user (in theory) has to pass this hurdle before being allowed access so why should cyclists be exempt?

How this could be accomplished without bringing in a cycling license I don't know because whatever form the proof takes I'm sure the government would love to tag on a points for offences system mirroring other road users.

It strikes me though that, in London especially, many cyclists are not drivers and so have had no requirement to read the Highway Code or be familiar with the law that covers them and other road users.

Maybe it would be a useful course that could be taught at secondary school

Thoughts? How can we get cyclists to know the law without giving them a license?

Best post on the subject so far.

Kieran_Burns

chilling wrote:

Thoughts? How can we get cyclists to know the law without giving them a license?

I'm not being flippant when I say this, but:

I have a Degree in Information Systems
I have a HNC in the same (got it just for passing the 2nd year of my course)
I have A levels in Biology, Physics and Maths
I also have various O levels and CSEs (showing my age)

All these prove I learned enough to pass the requisite exams and there's not a licence in sight.

Just remember that the dictionary definitions of a licence are basically 'permission' and 'a piece of paper showing permission'

A certificate shows competence. Subtle difference. (being that to get permission you need to show competence, but it is an extra step)

rubertoe

No licence's please. I am pretty bad at gaining a licence....

daviesee

Kieran_Burns wrote:

chilling wrote:

Thoughts? How can we get cyclists to know the law without giving them a license?

I'm not being flippant when I say this, but:

I have a Degree in Information Systems
I have a HNC in the same (got it just for passing the 2nd year of my course)
I have A levels in Biology, Physics and Maths
I also have various O levels and CSEs (showing my age)

All these prove I learned enough to pass the requisite exams and there's not a licence in sight.

Just remember that the dictionary definitions of a licence are basically 'permission' and 'a piece of paper showing permission'

A certificate shows competence. Subtle difference. (being that to get permission you need to show competence, but it is an extra step)

All of the above proves that you have done the relevant studies and passed the tests. Similar to a driving test. License or certificate? Semantics.
Takes us back to the old school cycling proficiency test. Which I passed. :P

airbag

chilling wrote:

In theory...

I started to wonder today after a cyclist took umbrage when I pointed out she was riding the wrong way down a one way street, why it is that every road user in the UK has to pass the Highway Code theory test apart from cyclists.

Now I'm not a big fan of licenses for cyclists, but it seems logical that if you are going to use the roads you should be au fait with the law. Every other road user (in theory) has to pass this hurdle before being allowed access so why should cyclists be exempt?

How this could be accomplished without bringing in a cycling license I don't know because whatever form the proof takes I'm sure the government would love to tag on a points for offences system mirroring other road users.

It strikes me though that, in London especially, many cyclists are not drivers and so have had no requirement to read the Highway Code or be familiar with the law that covers them and other road users.

Maybe it would be a useful course that could be taught at secondary school

Thoughts? How can we get cyclists to know the law without giving them a license?

Not every other road user has to obtain a license? Pedestrians don't, even in areas where a protected space hasn't been created for them. Nor do horses, segways, a whole array of oddball vehicles. It's *only* motorised vehicles that are licensed as a matter of course. Which makes perfect sense to me - the risk posed to others is much higher with motor vehicles. I totally understand why I am not allowed to take liberties with others' life and limb; they did not give consent to me driving around. But if the risk is to me, I can consent - what right do others (with the exception of those who might be physically dependent one me) have to overrule that consent? No, the NHS burden is not a good reason: an NHS that can impose whatever restrictions it pleases to reduce its own costs is less "free" than one that charges. Besides, being fat is totally legal and just as costly.

That said, at the very least offering bikeability at every school would be a great idea - should it not be a government's duty to try the least authoritarian way of fixing a problem first? Even if had no positive impact on cycling standards at all (and if done right, I see no reason it wouldn't be just as effective as a license - if you've had to resort to enforcement, you've admitted you can't convince others to do "the right thing" themselves. Which implies either it's not in their interests to do it, or you suck at convincing.) more people having a better grasp of road rules from a young age can only have positive consequences - and it's logical to teach people with a vehicle with which they can do little harm.

EKE_38BPM

daviesee wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

chilling wrote:

Thoughts? How can we get cyclists to know the law without giving them a license?

I'm not being flippant when I say this, but:

I have a Degree in Information Systems
I have a HNC in the same (got it just for passing the 2nd year of my course)
I have A levels in Biology, Physics and Maths
I also have various O levels and CSEs (showing my age)

All these prove I learned enough to pass the requisite exams and there's not a licence in sight.

Just remember that the dictionary definitions of a licence are basically 'permission' and 'a piece of paper showing permission'

A certificate shows competence. Subtle difference. (being that to get permission you need to show competence, but it is an extra step)

All of the above proves that you have done the relevant studies and passed the tests. Similar to a driving test. License or certificate? Semantics.
Takes us back to the old school cycling proficiency test. Which I passed. :P

The Cycling Proficiency Test has been replaced by Bikeability Levels 1, 2 and 3 (in case you don't know, I'm a full time Bikeability training instructor).
Level 1 is about bike handling. Starting and stopping safely, emergency stops, slow riding skills, shoulder checks, signalling, how gears work and how to use them. This is all carried out off-road (usually in a playground) away from traffic. If this is passed we move onto Level 2.
Level 2 is an introduction to the rules of the road and on-road cycling safety. Priority, Give Way lines, the see and be seen line, the door zone, taking the lane, how to turn into & out of minor roads and onto & off of major roads. As well as these essentials, I always try to include a mention of left turning HGVs & big vehicle visibility, cycling infrastructure and road furniture.
Level 3 isn't done until age 13ish usually and you have to have passed Levels 1 & 2 before starting the course. It is a refresher of L2 (because there is usually a 5 year gap between L2 and L3), but on busier roads and also includes roundabouts, route planning, traffic lights and multi-lane traffic.

L1 is mainly to check the trainee is competent to go out on the road at all.
L2 is aimed at 9-11 year old cycling on residential streets (to and from school/friends etc).
L3 is aimed at kids 13 year olds and up riding further afield.

What I'm saying is: Something like the Cycling Proficiency Test still exists and is being carried out in schools, but Bikeability is more hands on, more real life and the emphasis is on interacting safely with traffic rather than hiding away from it.
The kids love the fact that they get a certificate and badge for each level passed. Red badge for L1, Amber for L2 and Green for L3. When the kids hear that they always ask why I have a Black badge, but that is reserved for instructors.

Some secondary schools don't let pupils ride to school unless L2 has been passed. Perhaps colleges/universities could do the same for L3? That isn't a well thought out proposal, only an idea which has just popped into my head.

chilling

@airbag
Pedestrians? That's like having a 'being a human' license. Luckily we've dodged this one with the ID card so far. Horses? I only see them when they are pulling a hearse, being ridden by the plod or pulling a carriage full of gentry so I think I'll let them slide for now. Segways? I don't live in California and when I visit I don't see enough to think they would ever be a real problem, they are all on the sidewalks anyway.

A 80Kg man on a 16Kg bike travelling at 20mph carries enough inertia to do a 50Kg old lady or a 30Kg child, crossing the road a lot of damage, the risk isn't only to you. Yes as the vehicle gets bigger the damage is probably exponential, but tooling along as we do (I've read and been tempted with a bit of SCR on occasion) there is always the possibility that we will be the bigger object in the accident.

@EKE
I didn't know that cycle training had been revolutionised and actually has what seems like a proper structure. It would seem a good idea that everyone should have this sort of training as a requirement before being let unleashed into the veld. I'm not saying a license, lets get a certificate, eh Kieran?

Just to be clear that's not meant to be a pop at KB, more an agreement that what we want is to be able to produce a proof of competence without the rigmarole that a cycling license would surely entail. A license, I can only see being counter productive as it will put people off cycling all together.

Having a requirement that you get the opportunity to pick up in school for free feels like a sensible solution to the problem. Us old timers would probably kick up a stink when being told that we need to go and take a test to validate our cycling, but I'm sure the threads mocking the people who are CAT1 racers but who failed their Bikeability would be epic enough to compensate for that.

Oh, and if we've transgressed the law then so be it, book us Danno.

EKE_38BPM

When I was a kid I moved from one part of London to another and also changed schools. The new school's policy was that you couldn't ride to school unless you had passed your Cycling Proficiency Test. My old school didn't offer the test and I had already been riding on the roads for a few years and didn't want to do a 'kids test' so I never did it and never rode to school.

It was about two miles to my school. I usually took the bus. I feel ashamed now.

gbsahne001

indyP wrote:

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

likewise.....coughs, 36 years ago :oops:

EKE_38BPM

gbsahne wrote:

indyP wrote:

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

likewise.....coughs, 36 years ago :oops:

With Bikeability kids get a certificate and a badge!!

airbag

chilling wrote:

@airbag
Pedestrians? That's like having a 'being a human' license. Luckily we've dodged this one with the ID card so far. Horses? I only see them when they are pulling a hearse, being ridden by the plod or pulling a carriage full of gentry so I think I'll let them slide for now. Segways? I don't live in California and when I visit I don't see enough to think they would ever be a real problem, they are all on the sidewalks anyway.

And? The point I was responding to was that "cyclists are the only road users who do not require a license". Any point inferred from this is irrelevant - it is simply not true. Arguments are better when they do not rely on false statements.

chilling wrote:

A 80Kg man on a 16Kg bike travelling at 20mph carries enough inertia to do a 50Kg old lady or a 30Kg child, crossing the road a lot of damage, the risk isn't only to you. Yes as the vehicle gets bigger the damage is probably exponential, but tooling along as we do (I've read and been tempted with a bit of SCR on occasion) there is always the possibility that we will be the bigger object in the accident.

True but vague. The aim of improve the standards of cycling in this country is a perfectly valid one - but it must be reconciled with the principles of good government. One of which is that liberty should not be restricted in any way unless it can be shown to a reasonable standard of proof that it is necessary to prevent a significant amount of harm being done to others. You have rightly shown harm to others is possible, but that is a long way from showing it is significant. Show me it is significant (and that only loss of liberty would prevent it) and I'd back you. Tough? Yes. When you've given the authority to punish people, the process for deciding what you can do that for should be.

daviesee

EKE_38BPM wrote:

What I'm saying is: Something like the Cycling Proficiency Test still exists and is being carried out in schools, but Bikeability is more hands on, more real life and the emphasis is on interacting safely with traffic rather than hiding away from it.

I was not aware of this. :oops:
This is a good thing. :P

Hopefully riding standards will improve as those riders come though.

Or are they already through and simply riding slipshod?

MonkeyMonster

EKE_38BPM wrote:

With Bikeability kids get a certificate and a badge!!

Woah there nelly, who let a kid with freckles ride a bike let alone on the f**king road! Jeez louise people, it's going to be carnage! He's probably ginger as well so will cause untold millions of deaths. Will someone not think of the adults!

EKE_38BPM

I didn't take that picture, Google Images did.
We all know what gingernuts, carrot-tops and Duracells are like on the road.

gingaman

EKE_38BPM wrote:

We all know what gingernuts, carrot-tops and Duracells are like on the road.

Good riders?

its carribean sunset anyway

veronese68

Do all the kids get a badge to match their hair colour?

EKE_38BPM

gingaman wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

We all know what gingernuts, carrot-tops and Duracells are like on the road.

Good riders?

its carribean sunset anyway

I have said nothing different.

Veronese68 wrote:

Do all the kids get a badge to match their hair colour?

Yes. That is why I have a black badge and not many kids pass Level 3 (green badge).

debeli

I simply cannot get my head around the idea of a mandatory cycling test. I do not think it would work and I believe it will never become law.

Nonetheless, I think the following might make a difference:

Bicycles:
1. Roadside tests on brakes, lamps, general mechanical condition of bicycles and confiscation of really dodgy ones.
2. Large fines and confiscation of bicycles from riders above the current alcohol limit for drivers.

Motor Vehicles:
1. Compulsury re-rest of all drivers every ten years.
2. A significant amount of time during driver tuition dealing with vulnerable road users.
3. A SERIOUS media campaign (not preachy) showing vulnerable road users in a positive light and underlining the responsibility of all road users to respect all others.

I might even include cycling in primary and secondary PE lessons, much as one might include basketball, gym work and so on. Kids can ride on the road at quite a young age (mine did and I did, too) and yet training is left to the parents. That worked fine for me, but clearly has not worked fine for others.

So... no 'cycling test' but lots of room to improve the lot of cyclists.