The closest I got to taking a test was the cycling test ran by the police when I was 9. It was a big deal to have it. But yes I could cause a serious injury by dangerous cycling and be back on the road the next day doing the same thing. I would not disagree the law does need to change here. But then you see a lot of stories with disqualified drivers that continue driving.
Disqualified motorists are a problem as are motorists who got someone else to take their test.
Only if the police didn't arrest you.
Assuming everyone took 1 test and passed it, that would be an extra 6 million tests a year. There are currently 850k tests a year performed, so a 7-fold increase
That isn't going to happen. However a free mandatory online theory test every few years, perhaps with online course covering the sort of material you see on a speed awareness course, would ensure that people are aware of new laws. Commercial drivers have to do a day of CPC training every year. Setting aside a couple of hours every few years to keep your license seems a reasonable change.
The goal wouldn't be to stop the million uninsured/unlicensed drivers out there, it would be to increase training for the vast majority of license holders who think they are safe drivers, but haven't looked at a highway code for decades.
I know the huge number of tests every year would be the problem. Nice idea for at least an online test.
See
rule 66, which says cyclists *should* not ride more than two abreast, implying that up to two is permitted. (That's not a *must*, so not a legal limit, from what I can see.)
I never did a cycling proficient course, but I was the kind of nerdy kid that read my mum's highway code book when she was learning to drive. (I also owned an I Spy book "On the roads and Motorways", when I lived nearly 100 miles from a motorway!)
I drifted away from cycling as a teenager, and didn't come back to it until my 20s, by which time I'd passed my driving test and got a lot more on-road experience. That definitely made me a better cyclist than if I'd kept pedalling throughout.
I had a couple of I spy books. One was for collecting registration numbers the other was probably the one you refer to.
I genuinely don't get why drivers get so wound up about cyclists. When I drive, it's rare to catch up a cyclist and usually possible to overtake safely within seconds. I'm more likely to catch up a vehicle going slightly slower than me which is more difficult to overtake.
Interesting contrast, I am very easy to pass on a hill as I am not going fast (but less like to stop and let someone pass as I don't want to lose momentum), but I do try and let motorists pass as quickly as I can by stopping in gateways if needed so they pass on my terms rather then take a high risk move that is likely to seriously injure me.
All depends on patience that's all. In my car I have pulled over to let faster vehicles pass when I have an awkward load on the roof - last time was a 3m metal ridge piece which I assumed would whip up/around if I got fast enough.
The seem to see us all as red light jumpers, but I agree I don't know why we are the enemy. Even on a single track road I will pull over and let a car past as soon as I get to some tarmac wide enough to let them by safely, which is normally in under 1 minute. They would be stuck behind a tractor on such a road for much longer. (or someone doing 40mph on a normal A road in heavy traffic when the maximum speed is 60mph)
Always been the case that people remember the negatives. So one bad cyclist/car-driver is worth hundreds of good cyclists/car-drivers.
As for lane hogging slow coaches. The best example is two lorries neck and neck on the motorway both doing roughly 60mph !. Ram em I say - oh.
As someone who is probably 95% pedestrian, 5% cyclist, 0% car driver - I would say that the biggest problem in this country is for cyclists.
Cyclists are in many cases given the 'choice' of cycling along dangerously busy main roads (endangering themselves) or illegally cycling along pavements (potentially endangering pedestrians, but at a guess less of an accident risk than following the busy main road).
We need more in the way of dedicated off road cycling routes, as is done on large parts of the continent (and yes, I know that sadly Continent-bashing and doing things 'our own way' rather than listening to what other countries have to say is rather fashionable right now amongst our political masters). This rather macho 'cycling on busy roads is good for you' attitude does seem to be a peculiarly British thing.
My view is I accept that on roads that are too dangerous for cyclists then let them ride on the pavement - BUT not so fast.
I am terrified by cyclists whizzing past me on pavements / tow paths. If a cyclist wants to be safe then do the safe thing.
Only last night I had to dodge a cyclist on a crossing where s pedestrians had the green. I nearly jumped back into another pedestrian.
From 20 years of observations, the vast majority gain absolutely nothing by overtaking me in urban areas, unless joining the queue for the next red light a few seconds earlier is considered a win. I rarely cycle on roads out of town. I do the Taff trail but that's nearly all off road.
I get that as a car driver. Accelerating gently and overtaken by someone who ends up right in front of me at the next set of lights.
Less fumes, but they are quieter, so more likely to approach undetected and come as a surprise when they do pass. Busses with engines at the back are already relatively stealthy.
As a pedestrian I have nearly overlooked many a Toyota prius.
Sorry lost the post I wanted to quote but -
I have seen more and more cycle lanes in London and Croydon recently. From conversations I get the impression they are getting very very unpopular with motorists - causing large delays. But if motorists were always patient and careful then perhaps they would not lose lanes to drive in.
However - If they do convert them back the cyclist walkers start complaining. Look at the Bathgate - Aidrie line.
Let us image that some of the Hertfordshire lines were converted back (or to trams) - Hatfield - St Albans as one of them. The protest on the lack of the walking route would be very loud that they would need to build another one next to it. Maybe that is the solution, but in the unlikely event that this disused railway lines are converted back expect people fighting for it not to happen.
I seem to recall that building a new railway line is not much more expensive than resurrecting a disused one. I mean the costs of creating the embankments and cuttings etc are minor compared to track, signalling and electrification. Is that true ?.
) 'opinion' as to whether that journey is necessary?
