-
-
Any compulsory licensing or tests is likely to lead to a decrease in take-up of cycling. Agreed that training, especially for adults who have never cycled, is desirable but if the desired effect is to increase numbers of cyclists, then I have to agree with Weslito.
What **is **the desire here? To increase the number or cyclists overall, or to make it safer for those who would continue to cycle with the introduction of licensing (and potentially save the lives of those who would not)?
I think much of the problem in London is that people **just don't realize **what the dangers are and how to avoid them, because they've never been educated. A scary number of cyclists you see on the road just haven't got a clue. So maybe CBT would make a difference? I reckon many of those people would listen if given the proper instruction.
And although it would decrease the up-take of cycling, I think that licensing would mostly filter out those who do not cycle regularly, which may also make an improvement; they tend to be the least experienced on the roads.I don't know, these are just some brainthoughts. I'm not saying I'm for it. I'm sure it would mostly be used to catch RLJ's.
-
- Some form of compulsory training for cyclists (Flame me, but the idea that anyone can pick up a bike, without reading the highway code, and go mingle on the roads in central london is frankly ludicrous, they put themselves and others at risk, and if drivers knew cyclists had some kind of test, they might be a bit more respectful)
The problem being that all bicycles would then need to be licensed in order to enforce the CBT, which is gunna cause a whole lot of fun for everyone. Have any other countries done this?
- Some form of compulsory training for cyclists (Flame me, but the idea that anyone can pick up a bike, without reading the highway code, and go mingle on the roads in central london is frankly ludicrous, they put themselves and others at risk, and if drivers knew cyclists had some kind of test, they might be a bit more respectful)
-
And I agree about the bike lanes. All they do is encourage poor positioning and lead you into dangerous space at junctions. And being so bold and obviously 'bicycle lanes' they're improperly educating people who don't know better, implying that that is the 'correct' place to be, which as anyone who has a basic understanding of the safety will know, is seldom the case.
-
That's impossible to implement though. You will never be able to eliminate the exceptions of poor driver skill/care.
The safest cycling cities seem to have consistent and significant distinctions between vehicle/bicycle space. But then we get back to the problem of our unwilling government.Everyone, and I mean everyone, needs to share the road - but the drivers of big vehicles need to be even more careful than the rest of us, because they can kill, even at 2 mph.
-
-
-
-
-
Peloton Superlites as Hilary says, are really nice to ride.
I'd have taken that bike to replace my old one if it were my size.
+1
My first bike was a peloton superlite. I actually really miss it, even with its sketchy gears and bent hanger (The rear mech once touched the spokes climbing out of the saddle, 10 miles from home. I will never forget that almighty crunch of bicycle doom.)
This one's just my size too. PLEASE someone buy it before me!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The emphasis was more on ensuring that all cyclists on the road have been properly educated, rather than a need to police them.
In reality I can't see it happening, but I do think that the compulsory training would have a positive effect on general cycling and driving around cyclists in London.