Should cyclists have to sit a test?

[ArabHibee]

Following on from a conversation started on the PM board, has anyone else wondered why cyclists don't have to pass a proper test whilst every other vehicle user on the road does?

[Dinkydoo]

I think they'd agrue that thier vehicles don't have motors so therefore they shouldn't have to sit a test to use the road.

It's a difficult one because even though I think that it's perhaps a bit OTT to force all cyclists to sit a test before riding a bike (being that there isn't an age limit for cycling), I've also nearly killed countless idiots who don't signal/adhere to traffic lights....etc.

At the end of the day if people like this were punished for putting thier (and other) lives in danger then maybe they'd think twice before acting like a complete tool whilst on two wheels.

:rules:

[Hainan Hibs]

Just started cycling in the Netherlands, obviously they are more accomodating for cyclists but I'm all over the place, zig-zagging here and there, I'd fail a cycling test in seconds:greengrin.

[Dinkydoo]

Just started cycling in the Netherlands, obviously they are more accomodating for cyclists but I'm all over the place, zig-zagging here and there, I'd fail a cycling test in seconds:greengrin.



Is that not perhaps something to do with the *cough* way you are feeling at the time of jumping on the bike?

:smokin :LOL:

[ArabHibee]

I think it would be worth all cyclists sitting some kind of 'road awareness' test or maybe not a test but having to attend a class. When you think about it rationally, you can get on a bike and ride on a road with no awareness of what can go on and no knowledge of the highway code. That is very scary, for the cyclist and for other road users.

[Sylar]

I think it would be worth all cyclists sitting some kind of 'road awareness' test or maybe not a test but having to attend a class. When you think about it rationally, you can get on a bike and ride on a road with no awareness of what can go on and no knowledge of the highway code. That is very scary, for the cyclist and for other road users.

Our primary school were forced to do this when we got to primary 5 :confused:

I'm quite surprised to read that this isn't widespread through all schools in all honesty!

[ArabHibee]

Our primary school were forced to do this when we got to primary 5 :confused:

I'm quite surprised to read that this isn't widespread through all schools in all honesty!

You're talking about the cycling proficiency test. I don't know if this is still available and can you honestly say you remember everything you were taught at the age of 8 or 9?

I'm not having this discussion to have a pop of cyclists, it just something that concerns me, considering I had to take evasive action twice in the last week with people on bikes who didn't seem to have a scooby about the Highway Code!

[Sylar]

You're talking about the cycling proficiency test. I don't know if this is still available and can you honestly say you remember everything you were taught at the age of 8 or 9?

I'm not having this discussion to have a pop of cyclists, it just something that concerns me, considering I had to take evasive action twice in the last week with people on bikes who didn't seem to have a scooby about the Highway Code!

Surprisingly, I do remember some of the key features from the proficiency test, but then, I do cycle, so perhaps it's memory combined with experience.

I'd agree that something should be given - it used to be that people would only cycle on the roads if properly confident, but not any more.

It could be argued that the hazard perception part of the driving test should also serve to make drivers be more vigilant of cyclists (along with other hazards on the road)?

[ArabHibee]

Surprisingly, I do remember some of the key features from the proficiency test, but then, I do cycle, so perhaps it's memory combined with experience.

I'd agree that something should be given - it used to be that people would only cycle on the roads if properly confident, but not any more.

It could be argued that the hazard perception part of the driving test should also serve to make drivers be more vigilant of cyclists (along with other hazards on the road)?

But do you not think its more likely a combination of some memory, combined with experience of being a car user? I personally think that if someone has done the proficiency test and never driven a car, then their recollection of how to ride responsibly has to be pretty hazy from when they were 8?

[Dinkydoo]

]You're talking about the cycling proficiency test.[/B] I don't know if this is still available and can you honestly say you remember everything you were taught at the age of 8 or 9?

I'm not having this discussion to have a pop of cyclists, it just something that concerns me, considering I had to take evasive action twice in the last week with people on bikes who didn't seem to have a scooby about the Highway Code!


I had this in P7 (around 9 years ago), many pupils didn't have a bike that was deemed "suitable" (of the "correct" height to ride properly) or either failed/didn't turn up and were therefore allowed to proceed with thier cycling without any kind of road safety awareness taught to them.

I don't know if this still happens in Primary schools (I'll try to remember and ask my wee cousin next time i see her) but in my opinion, formalising cycling proficiency wouldn't do any harm.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Just started cycling in the Netherlands, obviously they are more accomodating for cyclists but I'm all over the place, zig-zagging here and there, I'd fail a cycling test in seconds:greengrin.

Do they not have some form of policing over there? I remember a friend telling me that police on scooters patrol the cycle lanes.

[lapsedhibee]

It's a difficult one because even though I think that it's perhaps a bit OTT to force all cyclists to sit a test before riding a bike (being that there isn't an age limit for cycling), I've also nearly killed countless idiots who don't signal/adhere to traffic lights....etc.


No offence but if you've "nearly killed" countless cyclists then it's probably you that needs more proficiency and testing!

(I cycle and yes, there should be a test.)

[Dinkydoo]

No offence but if you've "nearly killed" countless cyclists then it's probably you that needs more proficiency and testing!

(I cycle and yes, there should be a test.)


................due to cyclists swerving from pavement to road and going through red lights.

[Don-hibee]

You're talking about the cycling proficiency test. I don't know if this is still available and can you honestly say you remember everything you were taught at the age of 8 or 9?

I'm not having this discussion to have a pop of cyclists, it just something that concerns me, considering I had to take evasive action twice in the last week with people on bikes who didn't seem to have a scooby about the Highway Code!


The above test is still available our sons' school do this in P6, it may be up to the School if they want to do it as it may be additional to the curriculum :dunno:.

But on another note we have a woman who stays up beside us, uses a motabilty scooter and drives down the middle of the road, when motorist toot to get past, she ever so politely puts up the middle finger and tells them to F### O##

[ArabHibee]

The above test is still available our sons' school do this in P6, it may be up to the School if they want to do it as it may be additional to the curriculum :dunno:.

But on another note we have a woman who stays up beside us, uses a motabilty scooter and drives down the middle of the road, when motorist toot to get past, she ever so politely puts up the middle finger and tells them to F### O##

You don't stay in Livingston by any chance do you?:cool2:

[col02]

I have to be totally honest and say that in about 10 years of driving in the city cyclists have never troubled me in the slightest on the road. What has troubled me slightly though is the way some drivers who usually happen to be female or elderly and their approach to passing cyclists that see fit to require a clear lane to overtake when all that is required is a relatively safe distance for car user and cyclist alike.

[lapsedhibee]

................due to cyclists swerving from pavement to road and going through red lights.
If you kill a cyclist because he/she goes through a red light, or because he/she joins the road from a pavement, he/she is at fault but so are you - you clearly haven't being paying enough attention to other road users. Likewise if you "nearly" kill.

[ArabHibee]

I have to be totally honest and say that in about 10 years of driving in the city cyclists have never troubled me in the slightest on the road. What has troubled me slightly though is the way some drivers who usually happen to be female or elderly and their approach to passing cyclists that see fit to require a clear lane to overtake when all that is required is a relatively safe distance for car user and cyclist alike.

:agree: Totally agree with you.

[col02]

:agree: Totally agree with you.

Dunno what the cycle lanes are like where you live but in Edinburgh they are generally very poor so perhaps this is why at times cyclists are a bit further out than they should be. Even the cycle paths are in poor condition or unused for fear of being attacked by neds. :greengrin Despite this the council goes on about trying to get more people cycling to work etc.

[Jack]

There's a lot of things a lot of cyclists do that seems to me to be some sort of death wish or Death Race 2010 remake as they hurtle along the pavement. Besides all these, what annoys me a bit is when there is a cycle lane or part of the pavement is for cycles they continue to use the road.
.
The police should do more to discourage this anti social cycling.
.
Yes there should be a test AND compulsory insurance (for over 16s).

[Dinkydoo]

If you kill a cyclist because he/she goes through a red light, or because he/she joins the road from a pavement, he/she is at fault but so are you - you clearly haven't being paying enough attention to other road users. Likewise if you "nearly" kill.

So if a child runs from the pavement directly into your path and you hit them, it's as much your fault as thiers is it..............because you couldn't stop in time.

I pay attention to fellow road users and all objects/vehicles/people that could be a potential risk when driving.

In a court of law, if a motorist at a junction, looks left, right then left and the road is clear, pulls out and is then hit by another motorist. They are judged to be not at fault because the person who hit them was either going too fast or not obeying by the laws of the road.

Same applies to some nutter on a bike swerving, pulling out and/or breaking red lights.

I can't be held accountable for the careless behaviour of others - within reason of course.

I understand where your comming from and have to admit that I exaggerated a little in my initial post, I've only nearly killed a couple of cyclists : )

[CropleyWasGod]

You don't stay in Livingston by any chance do you?:cool2:

:tsk tsk:

[Pete]

I'm a regular road user and used to be a regular cyclist so I'd like to offer my opinion.
I don't cycle much now because recently it has become far too risky...especially in Edinburgh due to the poor state of the roads. In Edinburgh you have a lot of cycle lanes but they are poorly maintained and full of pot-holes. If you're on two wheels and come across a bad road you have to take steps to avoid it or your going over your handle-bars. The steps sometimes involve swerving out into the area where the cars normaly are or even sticking to a space about one metre away from the kerb. This annoys road users but let them try hugging the kerb on a bike and see how far they get. Cyclists don't have suspension that can brush inperfections in the road aside.
It's a nightmare because more and more people are texting/phoning/generally not paying attention behind the wheel and the cyclist takes them "by surprise". I've driven a cab for years now and this has become a more worrying trend. I'd say around 15% of the cars I have observed on the road have a driver who is either talking on or farting around with their phone.

However, as a cabbie I have almost come to grief with cyclists and seen many incidents the cyclist was at fault and others where the car driver was at fault.
Cyclists should be made to wear helmets. People have moaned that it's not a rule but what if a stubborn cyclist who refuses to wear one gets themself killed because they made a mistake and my vehichle was involved. I would have to live with the fact that I was involved in a death through no fault of my own rather than an accident were only minor injuries were suffered. It might sound a bit selfish but that rule would also save so many lives. Helmets cost around 3 pound in asda nowadays.

They don't help themselves either. Some might say that if you're a driver involved with a bike then you are in the wrong somehow but what about those bikes without lights or riders who don't wear flourescent clothing? They're basically asking for it as a lot of cars have blind spots due to the framework of the vehichle and sometimes things only "appear" at the last minute. If you're a cyclist who is making themselves invisible then you're running one hell of a risk.

Thousands upon thousands of pounds have been spent in various areas to build off-road cycle lanes to improve safety and maintain traffic flow. Yet there are some idiots who refuse to use them.
Stenhouse and broomhouse next to the tram line, Holyrood park and Glasgow road heading to the airport have such facilities that are clearly signed yet you always get some divvys who don't use them.
At Broomhouse and the park it's more of an inconvenience than it is dangerous but there's going to be a bad one on the airport road eventually. The inside lane slows done and pulls out when they realise there is a cyclist and this causes heavy breaking on the outside lane. You don't expect things on that road and it takes a lot of people by surprise. If the idiot cyclist would just use the pavement as the signs suggest then it would be a lot safer for everyone.


There definately should be some sort of test and there should be rules regarding helmet use and cyclists should be banned from using roads when there is an off-road cycle lane that can be used.
However, It's all about give and take and car users should realise that it's bloody frightening being passed by two tons of car every few seconds...each with the potential to kill you in an instant.

[Dinkydoo]

I'm a regular road user and used to be a regular cyclist so I'd like to offer my opinion.
I don't cycle much now because recently it has become far too risky...especially in Edinburgh due to the poor state of the roads. In Edinburgh you have a lot of cycle lanes but they are poorly maintained and full of pot-holes. If you're on two wheels and come across a bad road you have to take steps to avoid it or your going over your handle-bars. The steps sometimes involve swerving out into the area where the cars normaly are or even sticking to a space about one metre away from the kerb. This annoys road users but let them try hugging the kerb on a bike and see how far they get. Cyclists don't have suspension that can brush inperfections in the road aside.
It's a nightmare because more and more people are texting/phoning/generally not paying attention behind the wheel and the cyclist takes them "by surprise". I've driven a cab for years now and this has become a more worrying trend. I'd say around 15% of the cars I have observed on the road have a driver who is either talking on or farting around with their phone.

However, as a cabbie I have almost come to grief with cyclists and seen many incidents the cyclist was at fault and others where the car driver was at fault.
Cyclists should be made to wear helmets. People have moaned that it's not a rule but what if a stubborn cyclist who refuses to wear one gets themself killed because they made a mistake and my vehichle was involved. I would have to live with the fact that I was involved in a death through no fault of my own rather than an accident were only minor injuries were suffered. It might sound a bit selfish but that rule would also save so many lives. Helmets cost around 3 pound in asda nowadays.

They don't help themselves either. Some might say that if you're a driver involved with a bike then you are in the wrong somehow but what about those bikes without lights or riders who don't wear flourescent clothing? They're basically asking for it as a lot of cars have blind spots due to the framework of the vehichle and sometimes things only "appear" at the last minute. If you're a cyclist who is making themselves invisible then you're running one hell of a risk.

Thousands upon thousands of pounds have been spent in various areas to build off-road cycle lanes to improve safety and maintain traffic flow. Yet there are some idiots who refuse to use them.
Stenhouse and broomhouse next to the tram line, Holyrood park and Glasgow road heading to the airport have such facilities that are clearly signed yet you always get some divvys who don't use them.
At Broomhouse and the park it's more of an inconvenience than it is dangerous but there's going to be a bad one on the airport road eventually. The inside lane slows done and pulls out when they realise there is a cyclist and this causes heavy breaking on the outside lane. You don't expect things on that road and it takes a lot of people by surprise. If the idiot cyclist would just use the pavement as the signs suggest then it would be a lot safer for everyone.


There definately should be some sort of test and there should be rules regarding helmet use and cyclists should be banned from using roads when there is an off-road cycle lane that can be used.
However, It's all about give and take and car users should realise that it's bloody frightening being passed by two tons of car every few seconds...each with the potential to kill you in an instant.




Excellent post and a very balanced veiwpoint. :top marks

[Jay]

Kids at our school get cycling proficiency in p6 and there is a new thing my son did in P3 called Ready Steady Bike where they are taught bike safety/awareness rather than road saftey and it also promotes a healthy lifestyle. It was done intsead of gym and they got the obligatory certificate at the end.

[Removed]

Kids at our school get cycling proficiency in p6 and there is a new thing my son did in P3 called Ready Steady Bike where they are taught bike safety/awareness rather than road saftey and it also promotes a healthy lifestyle. It was done intsead of gym and they got the obligatory certificate at the end.

I've heard nothing from my kids at Mid Calder about it and they are P7 and P5. I'd want them to do it.

Dave F - if you see this do you know if Mid Calder do it?

[Jay]

I've heard nothing from my kids at Mid Calder about it and they are P7 and P5. I'd want them to do it.

Dave F - if you see this do you know if Mid Calder do it?

I think it depends on having someone qualified to do cycling proficiency with them. we have one of the support workers and a dad who take the kids. I remember it was PC Potter and the support worker but when PC Potter retired there was a panic and one of the dads stepped in and has carried it on since.

Ready Steady Bike is a new initiative started in Strathclyde. Marks P3 teacher came from out that way and brought it in but Mid Calder should have had a news letter about it as Marks photo was in the West Lothian flyer about it which was sent out to all the schools and I had to give permission and then was given a copy of it.

sorry thats a bit of a long story :rolleyes:

[Removed]

I think it depends on having someone qualified to do cycling proficiency with them. we have one of the support workers and a dad who take the kids. I remember it was PC Potter and the support worker but when PC Potter retired there was a panic and one of the dads stepped in and has carried it on since.

Ready Steady Bike is a new initiative started in Strathclyde. Marks P3 teacher came from out that way and brought it in but Mid Calder should have had a news letter about it as Marks photo was in the West Lothian flyer about it which was sent out to all the schools and I had to give permission and then was given a copy of it.

sorry thats a bit of a long story :rolleyes:

Thanks Jill. I'll set my eldest a challenge to go and see Mr Girdwood and raise it with him :greengrin

[heretoday]

It would be too much hassle and expense to set up cycling tests. It's like dog licences - fine for the sensible members in the community but the yobs wouldn't bother and the police are too busy with other matters to chase them up.

[speedy_gonzales]

In a court of law, if a motorist at a junction, looks left, right then left and the road is clear, pulls out and is then hit by another motorist. They are judged to be not at fault because the person who hit them was either going too fast or not obeying by the laws of the road.

Not sure if you speak from experience, but that sounds like nonsense! If you are at a junction, then pull out, and an 'accident' ensues, I'm pretty sure, 'legally', the person that pulls into the main carriageway is to blame!
When you check to see if it is clear, it either is, or it isn't, or you've missed something.

[speedy_gonzales]

Cyclists should be made to wear helmets.

Just out of interest, why? The vast majority of helmets out there, including your £3 smart price one from Asda, offer no protection at speeds over 10mph, a speed most cyclists can easily reach on our roads. That is a fact peddled out by various safety groups including RoSPA.



what about those bikes without lights or riders who don't wear flourescent clothing?
If we're talking night time, then yes, it's the law that lights should be used, this applies to ALL road users, motorists, cyclists, horse riders etc etc.


They're basically asking for it
asking for what? That's like that advert about a lassie wearing a short skirt, is she asking to get raped?


as a lot of cars have blind spots due to the framework of the vehichle and sometimes things only "appear" at the last minute.
Not sticking my head in the sand here, but the vehicles blind spot is the motorists issue and it is they that should be concerned about it. You can't go around hitting other people and blame it on your 'A' pillar.


If you're a cyclist who is making themselves invisible then you're running one hell of a risk.
Agreed, cyclist should be VERY visible as they are a vunerable road user, but other road users don't like it when cyclists adopt primary road position, in fact, most road users like it when cyclists are in the gutter, the one place that makes them difficult to see due to vehicles 'blind spots' and if you are coming out of a junction!

For what it's worth, when I cycle, I do wear an approved cycle helmet, high-viz gillet, have lights on at ALL times and at night even wear a head torch. This hasn't stopped me from being hit by more than one car. I'm pretty sure someone will come along and say 'with all those accidents, maybe you are the problem?', yeah, well the last one was at Drum Brae roundabout, I was in the middle of the lane to go straightover, waiting for traffic to clear and I was rear ended by a BMW, the driver thought it was sufficient to hold up a hand by way of apology, but if I hadn't been 'covering' my brake I would have been shunted on to the roundabout right under a 21 bus!

[SlickShoes]

I have cycled to work before in edinburgh and it was pretty scary.

I drive most of the time now but the amount of cyclists i have seen just go through red lights, up onto pavement and off again to avoid a red light or right down the middle of a moving traffic queue on the wrong side of the road is ridiculous.

I am patient enough to wait until its safe to pass a cyclist but when they almost level pedestrians to avoid reds and ignore them completely too its infuriating. I was waiting at a crossing once where the cyclist came up on the pavement then when i crossed bumped back onto the road and nearly flattened me and all he managed to do was shake his head at me and cycle on through the other pedestrians crossing the road.

[heretoday]

Oy Cyclists!

Get off the pavement.

Make yourself visible.

Stop at the red traffic light like everyone else.

You're not some harmless butterfly flitting about the place. You're in charge of a vehicle which can cause damage - not least to yourself - so grow up!

[CropleyWasGod]

Oy Cyclists!

Get off the pavement.

Stop at the red traffic light like everyone else.

You're not some harmless butterfly flitting about the place. You're in charge of a vehicle which can cause damage - not least to yourself - so grow up!

This is the type of comment which polarises the debate and doesn't help it. Not all cyclists behave the way you describe. Only some... and probably the ones you notice; you won't notice the responsible ones who behave sensibly.

The other day, my bike was hit by a van. Am I therefore justified in having a rant at all van drivers? Of course not.

I am constantly having a go at cyclists who ignore the rules of the road. Apart from the obvious danger, they give all decent cyclists a bad name, which results in comments like the one above.

[Dinkydoo]

Not sure if you speak from experience, but that sounds like nonsense! If you are at a junction, then pull out, and an 'accident' ensues, I'm pretty sure, 'legally', the person that pulls into the main carriageway is to blame!
When you check to see if it is clear, it either is, or it isn't, or you've missed something.


Not nonsense.

I was taught by drving instructor that depending which way you are going at a junction you look quickly to either side and then back to the first side you looked, if clear you go. If it was clear at the time of looking and within the few seconds it takes you to pull out, something comes flying into the side of you, then in most cases you are not held accountable - this is because the other person was probably either speeding or performing an illegal manouvre like ignoring traffic lights or joining the road from a pavement in a stupid place.

I mean you still have to use common sense but that applies to everything in life...

[The_Todd]

No offence but if you've "nearly killed" countless cyclists then it's probably you that needs more proficiency and testing!

(I cycle and yes, there should be a test.)

When a cyclist bombs through red lights at busy junctions (think Picardy roundabout, think Tollcross) and into traffic then it's not going to be the driver's fault.

I'm not saying all cyclists are bad, or all cyclists are rule breakers but I think there needs to be something in place where the cyclists are aware of the rules of the road.

I'm not blaming the cyclists, but the system.

[speedy_gonzales]

In a court of law, if a motorist at a junction, looks left, right then left and the road is clear, pulls out and is then hit by another motorist. They are judged to be not at fault because the person who hit them was either going too fast or not obeying by the laws of the road.

is not quite the same as


I was taught by drving instructor that depending which way you are going at a junction you look quickly to either side and then back to the first side you looked, if clear you go. If it was clear at the time of looking and within the few seconds it takes you to pull out, something comes flying into the side of you, then in most cases you are not held accountable.

Firstly, unless your driving instructor was Judge Dredd, they are not the law. They don't get to decide who was responsible for an accident, their knowledge of the law should be limited to the parts highlighted in the highway code or any other reputable road user advisory book.
Secondly, if you pull out of a junction, whether you look or not, and cause an accident where you are hit on the side or rear ended by a 3rd party then the car that pulls out is to blame. There are many situations where the 3rd party could be going faster than you expect, a blue light for instance.
I've also never heard of the 'few second rule', when pulling out of a junction, it is either safe and clear to go, or it is not, if you see a vehicle coming and pull out, then a few seconds later you are hit, then you would still be to blame, perhaps for not getting up to road speed? Cold comfort to think about 'what if the other guys speeding' when you count the cost of damaged bodywork.

Anyway, back to bikes:greengrin

[lapsedhibee]

When a cyclist bombs through red lights at busy junctions (think Picardy roundabout, think Tollcross) and into traffic then it's not going to be the driver's fault.

Are there red lights at the Picardy roundabout? :confused:

If a cyclist goes through red lights and hits a vehicle, I agree it's the cyclist's fault. If a cyclist goes through red lights and is hit by a vehicle, I still say it's the driver's fault as well as the cyclist's. If you're driving two tons of lethal metal around, you have a whopping moral responsibility (whatever the Highway Code does or doesn't include) to take care of other, inevitably more vulnerable, road users. Children, cyclists, horses, pedestrians (even drunk Huns wandering about) - take care of them all!

[Sergio sledge]

Cyclist here:

Cyclists should have some sort of test, but would be pretty hard to police, I did cycling proficiency at primary school, but perhaps it could be brought in as part of the PE curriculum in S1/S2?

Cyclists should have insurance, if only for their own protection if their bike gets damaged by an accident. Would be pretty hard to police though.

Cyclists should wear all available PPE they can, cycing helmets, high visibility vests, lights, reflectors etc. Police should be allowed to stop cyclists not wearing helmets, like they can stop cyclists if they are cycling on the pavements.

Cyclists who go through red lights on junctions are taking their life in their own hands, but they should also understand that they could be endangering others with their actions.

Cyclists who don't use dedicated cycle lanes when they are available need their heads looked at, there are several in Inverness, mostly widened pavements and yet there are still cyclists on the road next to it. Why? Very odd thing to do, and annoying when I'm driving the car!

Obviously, I'm perfect and do all of the above*!!!

*disclaimer: you may on occasion see me cycling without my high visibility vest, or running a red light, in which case it I'll deny all knowledge of having said any of this!

[Hainan Hibs]

Do they not have some form of policing over there? I remember a friend telling me that police on scooters patrol the cycle lanes.

Not seen that yet but I think that's right, a friend of mine who has been here a year said they got pulled over for not having proper lights, 150 euro fine apparently but she managed to avoid that.

[Dinkydoo]

is not quite the same as



Firstly, unless your driving instructor was Judge Dredd, they are not the law. They don't get to decide who was responsible for an accident, their knowledge of the law should be limited to the parts highlighted in the highway code or any other reputable road user advisory book.
Secondly, if you pull out of a junction, whether you look or not, and cause an accident where you are hit on the side or rear ended by a 3rd party then the car that pulls out is to blame. There are many situations where the 3rd party could be going faster than you expect, a blue light for instance.
I've also never heard of the 'few second rule', when pulling out of a junction, it is either safe and clear to go, or it is not, if you see a vehicle coming and pull out, then a few seconds later you are hit, then you would still be to blame, perhaps for not getting up to road speed? Cold comfort to think about 'what if the other guys speeding' when you count the cost of damaged bodywork.

Anyway, back to bikes:greengrin


Who's to say Stallone wasn't my instructor.....:wink:

No they don't decide who's responsible but I asked at the time if there was a general rule that applied when being involved in an accident because someone I knew was going through a court case where some idiot jumped the lights and ploughed into the side of them.

"and you cause an accident" - this is how I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this one. Why would the person pulling out be the "cause" of the accident, surely other factors are involved...... you seem to have decided that the person pulling out would be to blame regardless, where as I've said, if the driver has carried out certain criteria (I.E: checking both ways) and is then involved in a smash once they pulled out then in general, they probably won't be held responsible.

But the road is only safe to go or not if all people involved are obeying the law and driving reasonably.

Why isn't it possible for the road to be clear when checking and then not when you pull out...?

If an illegal manouvre is performed then this is surely variable, depending on the circumstances.

Admitedly, it was a pretty naff example in retrospect because it's dependant on so many factors.

It is possible that I was taught rubbish, although I can see the logic behind it.

Aye, back to bike bashing eh :wink:

[Jack]

Cyclist here:

Cyclists should have some sort of test, but would be pretty hard to police, I did cycling proficiency at primary school, but perhaps it could be brought in as part of the PE curriculum in S1/S2?

Cyclists should have insurance, if only for their own protection if their bike gets damaged by an accident. Would be pretty hard to police though.

Cyclists should wear all available PPE they can, cycing helmets, high visibility vests, lights, reflectors etc. Police should be allowed to stop cyclists not wearing helmets, like they can stop cyclists if they are cycling on the pavements.

Cyclists who go through red lights on junctions are taking their life in their own hands, but they should also understand that they could be endangering others with their actions.

Cyclists who don't use dedicated cycle lanes when they are available need their heads looked at, there are several in Inverness, mostly widened pavements and yet there are still cyclists on the road next to it. Why? Very odd thing to do, and annoying when I'm driving the car!

Obviously, I'm perfect and do all of the above*!!!

*disclaimer: you may on occasion see me cycling without my high visibility vest, or running a red light, in which case it I'll deny all knowledge of having said any of this!

Car driver here!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!









:wink:



A very sensible post, if only?

[The_Todd]

Are there red lights at the Picardy roundabout? :confused:


No, my mistake, but there is a pedestrian crossing just before and I've seen plenty cyclists carry on regardless, almost hidding pedestrians.



If a cyclist goes through red lights and hits a vehicle, I agree it's the cyclist's fault. If a cyclist goes through red lights and is hit by a vehicle, I still say it's the driver's fault as well as the cyclist's. If you're driving two tons of lethal metal around, you have a whopping moral responsibility (whatever the Highway Code does or doesn't include) to take care of other, inevitably more vulnerable, road users. Children, cyclists, horses, pedestrians (even drunk Huns wandering about) - take care of them all!

I agree drivers need to watch out for cyclists, but again cyclists should have a responsibility to pedestrians who are at the mercy of cyclists too. Especially when a pedestrian is crossing the road at a crossing and a cyclist ignores the red light as if it doesn't apply to them.

All I'm saying at the end of the day is would it really hurt for cyclists to be given even a brief overview of road laws? I'm not saying sit vigorous tests like car users, but something needs to be done.

I'm NOT blaming the cyclists!

[Woody1985]

I've had a thought, the government or dvla could set up an online proficiency training for those eager to learn. They could promote it in schools, unis, workplace etc. It would be a cheap and effective way to getting across to people.

I wonder how many cyclists don't drive. That probably gives an idea of the amount that would need training. That doesn't exclude those that do though!

[lapsedhibee]

Cyclists should have a responsibility to pedestrians who are at the mercy of cyclists too. Especially when a pedestrian is crossing the road at a crossing and a cyclist ignores the red light as if it doesn't apply to them.

:agree: