Well, no, of course not.
Make cycling proficiency a compulsory part of driving licence
We do not need the violence of the state in the form of more laws and there is no evidence that this idea will of itself make the roads safer. We don’t know yet what happened in the incident being referred to, so it is unwise to make such proclamations – not that this has stopped the Guardianista before, so why expect it now?
However… There is an argument that someone who is used to two wheels will make a more aware driver. My experience as an erstwhile ADI would support this. Not only will the learner driver already have some basic roadcraft learned from using the two wheeled vehicle, but they have an acute awareness of the relationship twixt rubber and the road – if not, they don’t stay upright for long.
That said, I find it relatively easy to convert car drivers to the world of motorcycling for much the same reasons. Roadcraft is a transferable skill.
Unlike the Guardian, I have no desire to see new laws mandating any of this – I merely point out that it has certain benefits.
Of course one of the main results of such a policy would be to act as a deterrent to people taking up driving, which is why many people support it. It would also lead to a magical increase in people with “disabilities” sufficient that they were unable to cycle. And also to a growth in businesses offering concentrated cycle proficiency training to people who would never cycle again.
XX cycling proficiency XX
They used to do this at my school in the 70s. One thing that was MOST noticeable, was the fact that all those, and I mean ALL, that ended up in A&E with “cycle injurys”, or with “tickets” for no lights, no breaks, etc etc, were thoe that had taken this farce of a “test”.
The impression was confirmed later, as a copper, I found virtually the same “rule of thumb” applied. A good 90% of all offences, and accidents, were from riders who had the “cycling proficiency”.
Only one cure for pushbikes. CLAYMORES!
I wonder how many people taking a driving test these days have never ridden a bicycle on the road?
I can see a good argument for offering subsidised (or preferably, free) cycle training to all who want it, as a way of helping those that don’t really comprehend what ‘road craft’ is get a grasp of it without having to undertake full licence training though.
The best drivers (usually seem to be those who have done all three in succession …
Cycle / motor-cycle / car.
But then, I’m prejudiced.
I’m inclined to agree – they get balance, machine control and roadcraft in a nice gradient.
The motor cycle CBT for me was the thing that totally changed my car driving habits, in terms of awareness, you have no choice but to switch yourself on or you’re going to get boned. (And not in a good way.)
I reckon the driving test should be changed to the CBT model, (a days tuition/evaluation as opposed to a 40 odd minute ‘test’.) If you don’t make the grade, you come back the following day.
Not sure cycling proficiency would do it, its too removed from driving a car on the road and the potential for death and destruction it entails.
You still get a test. All that CBT does is allow you out unsupervised n L plates. It is a good basic grounding, but as it is a one-size-fits-all it is flawed when you have a group of students with widely varying capabilities. You have to progress at the pace of the quickest and the slower students suffer, I feel.
I know, I have a full bike licence.
I was sort of saying compared to the driving test which is a box ticking exercise, driving instructors teach you to operate the vehicle then pass the test, the nuances of road safety and observation is learned by rote then discarded mostly after the test.
The CBT on the other hand did a bit of everything for me, I did that, mucked about with L’s for 18 months then did the full test needing only a 2 hour refresher lesson.
The CBT was more of an evaluation I felt, some folk who were on my course had to come back the following day which was fine. When I did it, it wasn’t one size fits all, we were arranged into groups as per ability, it was just more flexible and as I say, less adversarial so more conducive to a proper learning environment.
Equally, I might be talking mince, I know I have certain tendencies in that direction.
We separate people out according to ability but there is a limited time available and the whole shebang covers both manual and automatic machines – that’s pretty much what I meant by one-size-fits-all. I feel that it can be dispiriting for the student who is struggling to keep up with the rest of the group.
Yes, it is a good general approach, but the one-to-one that car learners get also has its benefits. There are good points to both approaches and flaws to both, too.
The other problem with the driving test is it’s not just a box ticking exercise, it’s a target hitting exercise. The examiners have targets for the proportion of passes and fails they’re supposed to issue each month, and if their stats are looking too generous/tight, their marking changes. Sometimes it’s marginal things, but I’ve seen someone doing their final reversing smack into a traffic cone so hard it ended up 6 feet away, and still get passed.
As a bike rider, what I see on the road among fellow riders is jawdropping. There is always the Darwin principle but unfortunately, it also takes out others. Don’t know what the solution is – legislation is not it.
Two things have made me a better car driver – motorcycling and driving a 2CV. Both teach you to look a long way ahead and contemplate who can see you and who can’t and what the idiot might do.
I hope you don’t take this the wrong way. Today I witnessed something horrific and at the same time wonderful. A car, with a driver and two passengers flipped 3 times and ended upside down on the verge. All three people walked away. They were saved by their seat belts. I have often noted that you believe the seat belt law only saves idiots from themselves and if they choose to not wear a seat belt, well it’s their own business. Well that isn’t really true is it? Since the law on seat belts was introduced, most safe minded, money orientated people have insisted all passengers buckle up. Which means, today, most young people (20 years and under) automatically reach for the seat belt. In fact, I, a 38 year woman, driving for nearly 20 years, could no more drive my car without my seat belt on than I could leave the house with out knickers. My children are the same. So, much as you would like to believe that the seat belt law is a pointless infringement on civil liberties I have to disagree. Thanks to that law, most sensible youngsters that enter a car will reach for the seat belt. And those that don’t, well they are totally entitled to rebel against society and fight for their rights. They are also the ones most likely to end up maimed, mangled or dead, having been flung through a window in their desperate quest fort independance.
It is not the role of the state to make decisions on our behalf about the risks we take and to protect us from poor decisions. Nothing you have said here changes that. The law is wrong – it has always been wrong. Wearing a seat belt or helmet is sensible and I would always do it as I don’t much like the idea of a wasp in the face at 70mph, for example. However, others have a different view regarding the risks they choose to take. And they are the ones who should make that decision, not the government.
I’m also assuming that every time you see a motorcyclist over take you at 75mph, not wearing a crash hat, or even decent leathers, your first thought is, go libertarian, fight for your independence, stand up to the dictators that want to steal your liberties and oppress your soul by making you wear a crash hat. The thought ‘Dude you are so fucking dead if you fuck up the next corner’ never entered your head, did it, MUCH?. I’m guessing this doesn’t happen much in England, what with the whole law about wearing a crash hat whilst riding a motorbike etc. Damn those oppressive law makers, they are such bitches
I don’t think anything. None of my business and I am rather more concerned with my own riding to be worrying about others taking risks. And if he does fuck up the next corner and ends up dead, well, chalk it up to Darwin. His concern, not mine and not the state’s.
At speeds over, I believe something ridiculous, such as 15 to 30 MPH, a crash helmet is fucking useless any way.*
Don’t you just LOVE it when someone who has never been near a motorcycle in their fucking PUFF, is all of a sudden the world expert on riding one?
*(MAG had the figures, and it was part of their campaign in the 80s and 90s against the helmet law in the U.K)
This is true. In the immediate aftermath of the helmet law being enacted more riders survived accidents. Unfortunately, they then had to live with crippling injuries and brain damage caused by the brain rotating in the skull during the impact. Frankly, I’d rather not survive.
That said, I will always wear a helmet because it keeps my head warm and the visor provides essential protection from flying insects and grit thrown up by other vehicles. As crash protection, It is a waste of time.