Should cyclists be made to take a road test?

bigpinkelephant

This is bugging me! (Please note I don't mean this as a rant against ALL cyclists- just a lot of them!!!).

Cyclists are the most vulnerable users of the road (well on wheels at least). But how often do you see them indicate, wear reflective clothing, wear a helmet!!! They are forever blatantly ignoring the rules of the road- running red lights, cycling 2 or 3 abreast and holding up traffic, cycling on the road instead of in their cycle lane, swerving out in front of you and NEVER looking- just dangerous behaviour. But yet if a motorist was to hit one the motorist would get the blame. I think it is time that an end is put to cyclists being seen as simply a hazard, and they start being seen as actual road users who make decisions that could be the difference between someone being injured/dying, and getting home safely. I think there should be some sort of road test they have to take to show they are competent on the road, the same as anyone else. What do you think??????

Alanstrainor

No, and to suggest they should is just crazy. It's in no way feasible to test every cyclist, i mean we can barely cope with driving test. Next we're going to have calls for pedestrians to complete a test before walking.

congo_90

op. I feel your pain but..
imagine a 6year old riding a bike. Do you expect him/her to have to do a road test? if it would come into effect it would be too hard to enforce and people wouldn't bother cycling.

ImDave

bigpinkelephant wrote: »

cycling 2 or 3 abreast

Cyclying 2 abreast is legal, any more is not afaik.

dmigsy

No. Insane idea to try to start another licensing system. Cyclists are vulnerable. I cycle and understand this and so take precautions to minimise the likelihood of and accident . In all road collisions with vehicles cyclists are going to come off worse. If some cyclists don't understand this, let natural selection take it's course. They'll be weeded out of the gene pool in the next few thousand years!

kona

coming from a cyclist 100% yes.
too many gob****es giving the proper cyclists a bad name.

would be easy to enforce too, such as it being mandatory to buy a set of lights which must be BS rated(too many people buy the cheapest lights which dont met standards) and a reflective waistcoat with all bikes purchased intended for road use(i.e over e300)

since a helmet isnt law and pretty much useless over a 12 mph crash or involving a car, i wouldnt add these.

maybe instead of a test, there should be informative literature about how to cycle in traffic.


but this is all great and wonderful, the problem OP is the general Irish attitude to cycling, its very ignorant.

main bits being

-buy the cheapest bike(usually unfit for road use)

-everybody is a bike mechanic:rolleyes: when infact they are not competant:o, so this results in bikes being dangerous(brakes not working, loose bearings etc etc)

- cycling = cheap. the general public do not realise the amount of money it takes to get cycling properly(although prob still less than the road tax they pay).
in reality its not cheap, if done safley and properly.

kona

congo_90 wrote: »

op. I feel your pain but..
imagine a 6year old riding a bike. Do you expect him/her to have to do a road test? if it would come into effect it would be too hard to enforce and people wouldn't bother cycling.

i know there are gob****es who would let a 6 year old cycle on a main road but,
what sane person would??

I remember when i was in primary school we went to the traffic scholl in clontarf for the day which was very educational, although at the time a dayy off school and a total dos!

bigpinkelephant

dmigsy wrote: »

In all road collisions with vehicles cyclists are going to come off worse. If some cyclists don't understand this, let natural selection take it's course. They'll be weeded out of the gene pool in the next few thousand years!

Yeah but think of all the motorists that will be charged with their deaths in the meantime!!! :pac:

ejmaztec

When oil hits $400 dollars a barrel, there'll be no more cars. Then pushbikes will be VRTd, NCTd, taxed, insured, not to mention speeding fines for exceeding 15kph. There will also be a comprehensive licensing and testing system for riders. Tandems for un-qualified riders will be compulsory as they won't be allowed to ride un-accompanied. Finally, there will be excise duty and vat on the air in the tyres. etc etc etc.....:mad:

Alanstrainor

kona wrote: »

coming from a cyclist 100% yes.
too many gob****es giving the proper cyclists a bad name.

would be easy to enforce too, such as it being mandatory to buy a set of lights which must be BS rated(too many people buy the cheapest lights which dont met standards) and a reflective waistcoat with all bikes purchased intended for road use(i.e over e300)

since a helmet isnt law and pretty much useless over a 12 mph crash or involving a car, i wouldnt add these.

maybe instead of a test, there should be informative literature about how to cycle in traffic.


but this is all great and wonderful, the problem OP is the general Irish attitude to cycling, its very ignorant.

main bits being

-buy the cheapest bike(usually unfit for road use)

-everybody is a bike mechanic:rolleyes: when infact they are not competant:o, so this results in bikes being dangerous(brakes not working, loose bearings etc etc)

- cycling = cheap. the general public do not realise the amount of money it takes to get cycling properly(although prob still less than the road tax they pay).
in reality its not cheap, if done safley and properly.

Asides from saying there should be a mandatory cycling test, i agree! Well except the helmet bit, but that's been done to death loadsa times so lets not go down that road:). The amount of people i see on bikes with no intellect when it comes to maintenance, ie cycling without functioning brakes and without lights at night is insane. And i agree that there should be more information provided to people on how to cycle on public roads.

Victor

I think the issue for all road users is education, not licencing.

Licening does become important with mechanically propelled vehicles due to the risks they pose to other users.

Lord Nikon

Fined for not wearing a helmet - at least.

Victor

Helmets do not prevent accidents.

Motorists drive closer when a cyclist wears a helmet.

Bicycle helmets are designed for falls, not high speed accidents.

Bicycle helmets can cause injuries that would not otherwise happen.

That said, I wear a helmet.

rowanh

Cyclists do not bother me when i am driving at all, at the same time cars did not exactly bohter me but more make me fear for my life as they put my life at danger pulling out into the road on the left when turning on the road i am on or turning left without looking to see if there are cyclists right beside or behind them. I think the answer is make people cycle bikes for a year before they start driving.

cyclopath2001

Maybe the OP needs to take a test.

bigpinkelephant wrote: »

cycling 2 or 3 abreast and holding up traffic,

Cycling 2 abreast is permitted and 3 when overtaking except when passing other traffic. Wearing of helmets and reflective clothing is recommended but not required legally.

bigpinkelephant wrote: »

cycling on the road instead of in their cycle lane,

Most on-footpath cycle tracks are illegal or don't go anywhere. The on-road ones are blocked by cars or are located in left-hand filters.

bigpinkelephant wrote: »

I think there should be some sort of road test they have to take to show they are competent on the road, the same as anyone else. What do you think??????

Motorists have to take a test to be allowed drive?

As to red light breaking, this is a issue for both cyclists and motorists. It's not well understood that the rule is to stop on amber.

craichoe

Dutch rules are that you have to learn in school and do a test, although theres no license, you have to pass the test.

djimi

Alanstrainor wrote: »

No, and to suggest they should is just crazy. It's in no way feasible to test every cyclist, i mean we can barely cope with driving test. Next we're going to have calls for pedestrians to complete a test before walking.

Why is it crazy? They use the road the same as cars, so shouldnt they be tested to prove that they are just as fit to be on the road as car drivers? A bad cyclist is just as likely to cause a crash as a bad driver, given that cyclists have a tendency to swerve in and out of traffic, and on several occasions I have had to slam on my breaks to avoid some moron on a bike who thinks he is invincible. Why not make them prove that they are fit to be on the road?

kmick

The problem is not that we dont have rules of the road for cyclists but rather that they are not enforced. However same goes for car drivers. Running red lights, blocking traffic, no safety equipment (no seatbelt) are all things cars do as well. If we all got fined for pissing around it might be a bit more civil on the roads.

Henry Ford III

Many cyclists seem to ride on the footpaths thse days. No need for a road test for them then.

cyclopath2001

djimi wrote: »

A bad cyclist is just as likely to cause a crash as a bad driver

Is this an opinion or a fact?

djimi wrote: »

Why not make them prove that they are fit to be on the road?

To be consistent, wouldn't that mean that car drivers would also have to take a test before being allowed to drive?

Marcus.Aurelius

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

To be consistent, wouldn't that mean that car drivers would also have to take a test before being allowed to drive?

Good point, I'd agree to testing both classes before allowing them on the road.

cyclopath2001

maoleary wrote: »

Good point, I'd agree to testing both classes before allowing them on the road.

How would you phase it in? There's thousands of drivers who either have not been tested or who have been tested and found to be incompetant.

I the short term, it would certainly relieve traffic problems once the roads are reserved exclusively for tested/passed drivers.

L1011

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

To be consistent, wouldn't that mean that car drivers would also have to take a test before being allowed to drive?

They do. Driver Theory Test.

snickerpuss

The beauty of a bike is you can just hop onto it and go, even if you haven't cycled in years/months.
Only serious cyclists are going to spend money passing bike tests and getting expensive equipment.
It would seriously discourage casual cyclists who just do it in the summer/the odd time. And what age do you start it at?
Come on, it's silly.

Alun

snickerpuss wrote: »

It would seriously discourage casual cyclists who just do it in the summer/the odd time. And what age do you start it at?
Come on, it's silly.

Way back in prehistoric times when I was but a lad back in England they had this thing called the Cycling Proficiency Test. I think it was run by RoSPA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents), and involved several weeks lessons after school followed by a test out on the roads. I wasn't allowed by my parents to ride my bike on the public roads until I had passed the test. You even got a little aluminium disk to attach to the handlebars of your bike too.

cyclopath2001

MYOB wrote: »

They do. Driver Theory Test.

That's just a question/answer test and doesn't reveal much about actual behaviour or ability. I am sure many road users know it's wrong to speed or not stop on amber but just don't care.

Many provisional drivers are on the road who've never taken even the theory test.

I presume the OP proposed an actual test of road-use behaviour?

Maybe cut to the chase and ban road-users for traffic light infringements, bad overtaking, illegal parking or speeding would be more efficient? Hold a 'zero-tolerance' week and weed out the bad apples?

bigpinkelephant

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Maybe the OP needs to take a test.

Already did, passed first time, thanks.

bigpinkelephant

djimi wrote: »

Why is it crazy? They use the road the same as cars, so shouldnt they be tested to prove that they are just as fit to be on the road as car drivers? A bad cyclist is just as likely to cause a crash as a bad driver, given that cyclists have a tendency to swerve in and out of traffic, and on several occasions I have had to slam on my breaks to avoid some moron on a bike who thinks he is invincible. Why not make them prove that they are fit to be on the road?

Damn right!!!

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Is this an opinion or a fact?

To be consistent, wouldn't that mean that car drivers would also have to take a test before being allowed to drive?

Yes, it is called a Theory Test, and "cyclists" seem to be the answer for about 70% of the Hazard questions.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

That's just a question/answer test and doesn't reveal much about actual behaviour or ability. I am sure many road users know it's wrong to speed or not stop on amber but just don't care.

"Know" being the operative word. At least those drivers have proven with their Theory Test that they do have a knowledge of the rules of the road. Any test is better than none.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Most on-footpath cycle tracks are illegal or don't go anywhere.

Does that mean the footpaths they are on don't go anywhere either? And how are roadworkers permitted to paint cycle lanes if they're illegal?

I am sick and tired of cyclists swerving in front of me,secondly I am sick of them cycling on the road and swerving in front of me when there is a perfectly good cycle lane to be used.

Alanstrainor

bigpinkelephant wrote: »

Does that mean the footpaths they are on don't go anywhere either? And how are roadworkers permitted to paint cycle lanes if they're illegal?

Often paths will make there way around into an estate and the cycle lane will just stop.

bigpinkelephant wrote: »

I am sick and tired of cyclists swerving in front of me,secondly I am sick of them cycling on the road and swerving in front of me when there is a perfectly good cycle lane to be used.

And you say perfectly good cycle lane, i would seriously ask you to venture into Dublin on a bike or Rathfarnham, the cycle lanes are atrocious, they've been horribly patched making them dangerous to cycle on and are often incredibly uneven to the extent where i've buckled wheels doing nothing more than cycling on them. You should give cyclists a decent amount of distance when over taking, often us swerving out is as a result of an obstacle.

bigpinkelephant

Alanstrainor wrote: »

You should give cyclists a decent amount of distance when over taking, often us swerving out is as a result of an obstacle.

I do, however some looking ahead and INDICATING before the swerve would help. Unless cyclists are extremely short sighted, they can see potholes etc in advance and therefore should indicate with a hand signal. Hazard perception is a huge part of using a road, as is awareness and consideration for other road users. If I was driving along and saw e.g. a broken down bus pulled over with its hazards on, I would indicate before going around it. Even though it would be quite obvious to other road users that I will probably not intend on sitting behind a broken down bus all day. A lot of cyclists do not seem to realise this and seem to assume that because you are in a car, you are a mind reader and know exactly what they intend on doing.

cyclopath2001

bigpinkelephant wrote: »

"Know" being the operative word. At least those drivers have proven with their Theory Test that they do have a knowledge of the rules of the road. Any test is better than none

You're assuming that the cyclists who are being complained about, have not already done some kind of test or don't have driving licenses.

As for cycle lanes, many of these are constructed with parking to the left and without any safety margin for a car door being opened on to it. This means that cyclists have to leave the length of a car door between them and the parked car. A car door is longer than the width of a cycle track. So, the track becomes unusable when cars are parked to the left. Similarly, the width of a cycle track is too small to allow for cycling and indicating at the same time without striking one's arm against adjacent cars to the left or to the right. An additional inhibiting factor (to indicating) would be wind or the quality of the road surface and the effect on balance of taking one hand off the handlebars.

So, if deciding to overtake a cyclist, it's important to take into account all circumstances.