Hypothetical question: Would training cyclists be necessary in a motor free world?

Interested in views on this.
I think that training (whether delivered by skilled parents or cycle trainers) would enhance peoples bike control skills and and improve interactions with others in the environment be they walkers and other cyclists. With some input riders would encounter less risk. While in general risk of harm would be lower in a motor free world, the severity of any crash being significantly less. People with poor bike control/ poor understanding of basics of interaction with others may still be likely to crash.

Would traffic lights be necessary in a motor free world?

Are traffic lights necessary in our motorised world ? #Portishead

India seems to get by fairly well by having traffic lights and then ignoring them.

The following is totally uneducated brain squirrel stuff (but you asked for views):
Motorised vehicles cause the most death and injury on our roads.
But in some ways it seems like people (pedestrians) are very vulnerable to injury from cyclists - like I feel if I were to hit a person standing/walking, I'm hitting them high in the body or at head height and they go over in a way that's likely to lead to severe head injury. A car, even though it has so much more weight/momentum, I kind of imagine people go over the bonnet instead leading to leg and spine injuries.
Combine with the stealth factor - people less likely to see/hear cyclists approaching. Combine with feeling less at risk - people take more risks with cyclists/bikes than cars/big things.
Training cyclists would become more like training HGV drivers now - to make them aware of the more vulnerable road/space user, and take more responsibility for them. Less about how to avoid injury to themselves, more about avoiding injury to others.

Very good brain squirreling. In fact sharing space off road with others is an optional training outcome ( 1.13). With London's infrastructure revolution this should be compulsory

I still think training would be needed for some. As much as the risks would be reduced some would still want training and find it reassuring to know they are learning from someone suitably qualified. I doubt in a motor free world that the funding would take the same shape, it would either be a very niche market to teach people or such an essential skill it's added to the curriculum, for some reason I just can't see a middle ground if we went motor free.

I think our road designs would take a very different shape too, would we need/want traffic lights, speed bumps or even markings. Would we really want pavement and road/cycle track or just a large shared space. I can see level crossings at railway lines still having lights(if trains have been allowed in this idea as a last bastion of public transport).

Also I'd think our "motorways" will then be filled with sail trikes zooming along whenever the wind is in the direction they want to go.

Made a tweak to do with injuries, didn't make sense before.
I think too many cyclists don't think of others as being more vulnerable than them and also don't really admit/accept they can also injure and kill. (I admit I am very risk averse. )

Wow, all the motorways...
(probably be sold off for flats)

I dunno, I can see them being turned into weird tunnels or something designed so it always has a tailwind and then filled with sail trikes going silly fast.

Very good brain squirreling. In fact sharing space off road with others is an optional training outcome ( 1.13). With London's infrastructure revolution this should be compulsory

Interesting, as that's not a control skill and therefore introduces an element of theory to level one before you get 'on road'.

I have ideas on this one, but I'm curious as to how you measure that outcome.

It is level 1. So a control skills outcome. I measure it be observing trainees:
Slow sown while passing a walker it another rider.
Pass them wide
Wait patiently behind or decide if tinging a bell is appropriate.

All done through playground games