I have a full motorbike licence.
In order to get my motorbike licence I had to take a rigorous theory test and a practical – on the road in real traffic – examination. Passing that exam enabled me to get a restricted licence. This was only valid for one year and could not be renewed ad infinitum. The restricted licence also limited me to the size of vehicle I could drive on the roads.
After passing the restricted motorcycle test I went on to complete full motorcycle training and pass a very stringent practical examination. This allows me to ride motorcycles on the road system.
The aim of that test was to ensure I knew the rules/laws of the road and that I could navigate my way through the road system, aware of others around me, control my vehicle in various traffic flows and knew what the correct thing to do was at all times.
I have a full car licence.
I was required to take another theory test, even though I’d already passed the theory test for my motorbike licence. I was also required to pass a driving test, even though I had already passed a test for my motorcycle licence.
The aim of *that* test was to ensure I knew the rules/laws of the road and that I could navigate my way through the road system, aware of others around me, control my vehicle in various traffic flows and knew what the correct thing to do was at all times.
I have an HGV licence.
Before I could even get in to this I needed to have a private medical examination. Then, once again, I needed to pass both theoretical and practical examinations before I was awarded a licence that entitles me to drive multi-axle vehicles capable of carrying simply staggering weights
And yet again, the aim of that test was to ensure I knew the rules/laws of the road and that I could navigate my way through the road system, aware of others around me, control my vehicle in various traffic flows and knew what the correct thing to do was at all times.
Each test has given me an enhanced perspective on the limits and limitations on all other road traffic.
And yet cyclists have, by default, no perspective on the limits and limitations of all other forms of road traffic, or even their own form of road traffic, because cyclists are not required to take any kind of benchmarking examination.
It’s staggering that cyclists are not required to display any degree of theoretical or practical road knowledge. They can just get on a bike and weave their merry way out in to the busy rush-hour traffic of any village, town or city.
Clearly, this is not right.
I’m not whining that I’ve had to do it three times and it’s not fair; I’m simply saying that to allow anyone to take up a form of road traffic and enable them to mix and mingle with other forms of road traffic with absolutely no provenance of their awareness of Traffic Law (including rights of way, rules of the road, stopping distances – of other vehicles – lane control and signal awareness and, amazingly, not even a basic sight test) is beyond comprehension.
This situation is very clearly wrong.
The argument that cycling bodies use, at this point in the conversation, is that the vast majority of cyclists already have car licences and so…
And so what?
What does it prove if *the majority* have a car licence? And where are the statistics to back up this fatuous statement?
The answers to these questions are so painfully obvious that the cycling fraternity prefer not to face up to the inescapable, so I’ll do it here for them:
None of the cyclists on the British road system have ever passed a *legally mandated* cycling test.
Let me explain.
If all other forms of road user are required to take a test *that determines the fitness of that person to use the road network*, why are cyclists exempt?
Motorcycle tests, car tests and even HGV tests are not about maintaining those vehicles, they are about determining the knowledge-level and the mental ability of the candidate *to use the road network*.
I don’t know what it is amongst the cycling fraternity that brings down the shutters in their minds that makes them unable to see the logical – particularly these days, when cycles are capable of speeds of in excess of 30mph, a world so very different from the 2mph days of the early ‘boneshaker’ – that every form of road user is potentially lethal.
And therefore all road users need to be tested *on that form of road use* to determine their knowledge level and mental ability and physical capability to cope with that form of road use within the rules of the road.
Why is it so very hard for some people to see the inescapable logic?
Why do they cling so tightly to a legal loophole that arose over a hundred years ago, and a loophole that has not been adjusted to take into account the situation we now face each and every day on the roads?
If I am required to prove how well I know the rules of the road *and* how well I can navigate through the road system, correctly, safely and legally three times – motorbike, car, HGV – why are cyclists not required to prove *they* know the rules of the road and that *they* are capable of navigating through the road system correctly, safely and legally?
As a trainee motorcyclist I rode out on the roads under the watchful eye of my instructor. We were in touch via two-way radio and if he even thought I was going astray he would bellow loud enough to make my head ring.
Why aren’t cyclists placed under a similar scheme?
Until the cycling lobby can conclusively prove that mandatory testing would yield zero benefit, the logical position must be that the compulsory training of all cyclists to a national minimum standard would improve road safety and reduce road accidents.
I await their proof. But I won’t be holding my breath.
But… but… this is theoretical. In practice, usually the idiot who runs a red light and hits you doesn’t have insurance or a license (or if he did it was suspended).
As a practicing cyclist, I agree that there are some real idiots pedaling out there. But I suspect they are the same people (or close relatives) to the idiots behind the wheel of that car that just swerved across three lanes and cut you off.
Intrestingly, over here (in Nebraska) everyone’s driving license, er I mean licence, expires every five years and they are then required to take an eye test, a medical (for some) and randomly, another full driving test – both theory and practical.
If you are from “out of state” – say, from Texas, you can drive for 30 days before you are required to get a Nebraska license. That too then expires every five years – no matter what your home state’s rules are.
My UK licence is irrelevant – quite rightly they treat me as a provisional driver and I have to take my full test.
Although, the funniest thing ever is that they *used* to have the equivalent of an MOT test for vehicles but it was abandoned in 2000 after it was ruled “unconstitutional” (the constitution prevents the US government from spying on or monitoring US citizens and assumes compliance with the law unless there is strong evidence to the contrary – something that local bin-snooping and school cachement knobbing councils might liek to take note of).
As a consequence of the MOT ban it is common to see cars driving around with bits hanging off them, broken windows, wing mirrors and even, as in the case of our next-door neighbo(u)r, both front airbags popped out (which she didn’t fix for two months).
So: much tougher driver licensing – much more lax vehicle mechanical soundness.
..and no, the cops can’t stop you if your vehicle looks shoddy either unless it’s obviously dangerous like your lights are out.
Oh, and it was 7am here which is my excuse for the typos – it’s hard enough as it is remembering which way round if the ‘correct’ spelling for stuff. How soon one becomes accustomed to the US way of doing things…
Having lived in Oxford for over 6 years now, and travelled as a pedestrian, cyclist AND motorist, I can categorically say that the majority of near misses, and indeed actual accidents, that I have witnessed involve a cyclist in the wrong.
Jumping red lights, no lights, not looking, cutting up the inside of busses and lorries at junctions to then wait under the wing mirrors where they can’t be seen… Not to mention cycling on pavements for no reason, then expecting pedestrians to give way.
A major factor- in Oxford especially- seems to be cyclists who just don’t know how to ride a bike. Struggling trying to go fast in low gears, trying to get up a hill in top.. Wobbling all over the place, 6″ from the kerb while traffic passes at 30mph is suicidal behaviour!!
The ethos seems to be “I’m at uni now, so I’ll get everywhere by bike. Never mind that I haven’t ridden one since I was 10 and don’t drive so don’t understand how roads work..”
Interesting thought and I tend to agree if it allows us all to share the roads as equal – but that still would never be the case.
And as you well know – just because you “have a license” doesn’t mean that you stick to the rules of the road.
Does this mean that you also need a test to learn how to cross the road properly? Also, what about horse riders? Tests for them too?
Joby, I agree that ‘having a license’ doesn’t mean a person *sticks* to the rules, but it at least means they are capable (or were once) of driving within the rules.
There is a national test for horse riders. The British Horse Society, Riding & Road Safety test covers all aspects of riding on roads, riding within the rules and also the non-mandated ‘guidance’ from DfT. The test also includes simulated roadworks and how to deal with objects likely to cause a horse to spook. The test is not yet compulsory for *all* horse riders, but it *is* the first stage of a compulsory process for a horse rider of any age if s/he wants to take either pony club, riding club or British Horse Society examinations.
And I feel that I must point out that any horse rider who is a member of one of the competition disciplines – British Horse Society, British Eventing, British Dressage or British Show Jumping Association – is automatically covered by a Personal Liability Insurance of up to £10 million for all the horses the rider owns, looks after and/or rides, *and* a Personal Accident insurance up to £15,000.
Would that the cycling fraternity could catch up!
I can’t help feeling that cyclists will *always* be seen as the ‘poorest’ road users simply because they’re stuck in the 19th Century and won’t put themselves on the same terms as everyone else. They’re basking in a problem of their own making. They want respect? They should earn it – by establishing a legally benchmarked standard and achieving it.
Crikey – £10,000,000. That’d be some serious damage 🙂
I have it up to £1,000,000 and I reckon I’d struggle to cause that much (if the accident was my fault).
Not being an expert on horse riding I can’t comment, but can say that there are loads round here and all seem more than capable – 8yr old to 80yr olds!
As for your last paragraph – yes. I agree again (we don’t seem to disagree on much).
There are too little rules for cyclists in general. Yes, we have the highway code BUT if you haven’t passed a driving test – you wouldn’t have a clue. Me commenting to someone jumping a red light is never going to make a difference to them unless I throw my bike at them – but I’d get done for assault 🙂
I must admit when I first started cycling I found it very scary and I would have benefitted from some sort of training.
I’m also for license plates on bikes too 🙂 (Still trying to find a number plate small enough to slip under my seat but visible enough to people behind so I can at least put my car reg on incase I accidentally cycle away from carnage behind me 🙂 )
Going back to that £1,000,000 liability – what a stupid thing I said!
Its quite easy to cause that much damage (ie: limbs, life etc) so sorry :O
The insurance policy thing re horses has always puzzled. I’m a member of British Eventing so get the insurance goodies, but like many eventing competitors, won’t ride on the road (unless it’s to cross a road between fields) because our horses are too precious to expose them to that much risk.
It’s too easy to get territorial and I fall in to the traps quicker than most.; Mike’s comment above is an accurate statement of Oxford cyclists. Milton Keynes had a good stab at making the problem go away by separating cyclists from other road users. But is that the thing to do – keep cyclists away from motorised road use? I don’t think it’s feasible and come back to education every time.
However, I do believe the driving test is ridiculously easy and we would also benefit from time-limited driving licences/mandatory retests. I like the picture that Punctuation brings from the US. 🙂
…and of course as an ex-resident of Milton Keynes I can tell you that are very few bicycles seen on the roads at all – maybe one or two every few months. You are positively discouraged from riding on the roads due to the huge network of “redways” (although they do vary in quality, glass hazard and safety). I invested in puncture-proof tyres on my bike and never had any problems after that.
It is unwise to cycle on the normal roads **anywhere** in MK due to the prevailing speed limit on most H and V grid roads being 60 / 70 and the MK driving “style” which really amounts to “head as fast as possible to the next roundabout and only lightly touch the brake if absolutely forced to due to an imminent collision with someone taking your bit of the roundabout”. We could always spot the non-locals – they slowed down or stopped at a round-about…
Cycling on the pavements – i.e. not on the redways which are the official cycle paths – is also tolerated and it seems, from my experience of 14 years that you’ve nothing to fear from police interference in this practice either – unless you ride like an arse.
FWIW horses tend to commonly use the redways too although some of the underpasses are low enough you’ll have to get off and lead your mount through unless you want to test the strength of your riding hat on the corner of a concrete bridge.
I can’t speak yet for Omaha cyclists as it’s been pretty much solid snow since I got here – but then around these parts people don’t tend to walk anywhere so I doubt they’ll jump on a bike to head down to the mall either. I’ve certainly not seen any bike racks with woefully abandoned black cycle locks adorning them… 🙂
Cyclists should take tests.
Cyclists should also, IMO, be required to have third-party insurance as well.
And if they want to jump red lights – which the majority of those in Abingdon seem to wish to do – they should, of course, be subject to the same penalties as I would be should I do so with either my car or my motorcycle.
Either that or capital punishment – I’m undecided.
D
Cyclists will get fined for jumping a red if there are police around at the time of the incident – much like any other vehicle driver.
Also, a lot of cyclists do have insurance – you can’t assume just because someone is cycling that they don’t have insurance.
My bike is worth more than 10% of the cars on the road – of course I’m going to have insurance.
I can’t find the reference point from here but I do know that Thames Valley Police had a blitz on cyclists in the city of Oxford just before Christmas. The local media reported that within the space of 24 hours, the police handed out more Fixed Penalty Notices to cyclists than they would normally have given to motorists over a week.
I wish they would do a similar thing up here. Oxford Road (university land) is appalling for cyclists jumping red lights / pavement hopping etc.
I don’t think the “go through red at a junction if turning left trial” for cyclists in London is going to help things get better either 🙁
And as you know Brennig – I travel through one of the worst roundabouts in the north where there are plenty of RLJing cars at each light turn, but I suppose each area has its own issues – some where cyclists are more of an issue, some where cars are more of an issue – some where both are an issue.
I say bring in the Nebraska rules and compulsory training for every road user.
Lets learn to ride along with each other.
Either that, or I’ll move abroad 🙂
As an aside, I saw a cyclist get knocked of his bike just near the Station in Oxford this morning. For once it was the car drivers fault, though to her credit she did send the cyclist a long way before he crashed to the ground.
I’m not sure who was the most upset to be fair. Still no lasting damage done to the cyclist, though his bike was not so lucky.
I was walking back to my car in Abingdon today, and had a showdown with a cyclist.
I was walking on the pavement with oncoming traffic on the other side of the road. She was cycling, on the pavement, facing oncoming traffic (i.e. cycling the wrong way).
No helmet, no reflective gear and absolutely no intention of moving out of my way, even though the pavement was too narrow for both of us.
And it wasn’t malicious, either. I tried to make a point of letting her know I was not going to stop, but she didn’t slow down and I had to back against a garden wall for her to go sailing past. She smiled at me. Not nastily, it was a ‘thank you’ smile.
I may have muttered expletives at her.
How does she think she has the right of way on a pedestrian footpath, going the wrong way?
She doesn’t – you should have, had you an umbrella, jammed it in her wheel.
Its unfortunate that people like that give cyclists a bad rep and it annoys me as much as it annoys the non cyclist!
I’ve spent the day arguing with other cyclists over why they jump red lights too 🙁
Can we have pedestrians taking a proficiency test also?