Survey: Most cyclists back compulsory cycle training

Although I feel that any compulsion is a bad thing where cycling is concerned (except obviously legal requirements like lights and the Highway Code) I do think that some accomodation can be reached.

If cycling was to be taught in schools as part of the National Curriculum then it enters the mainstream consciousness. Cycling becomes a normal activity, cycling becomes the norm! Discuss.

Other countries can do it so why can't we?

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2015/04/felix-and-danish-cyclist-test.html

Yes I know it's not compulsory in Denmark, but the take-up by schools is almost universal.

We have to find a way to break this car-dependency culture. I did a simple survey with the assistance and co-operation of a local school. This school has a huge percentage of pupils delivered by car, a whopping 65%!

Parents were asked "What is the principal reason for driving your child/children to school?". Options included

• Child not mature enough to make own way to school.
• Child cannot be trusted to attend.
• Too far (over 2 miles).
• Fear of abduction.
• Dangerous roads to cross on route.
• etc, etc, ...

In all there were 20 options. Have a guess what was number 1. I bet you've already worked it out!

92% of parents who responded said that the reason that they delivered their children to school by car was ... drum roll, please ... "The high volume of traffic at the school gate caused by parents dropping their children off at school." Ta-Dah! You couldn't make it up!

Who said irony was dead?

nonseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeense

"56 per cent of people who cycle frequently"

Likely self-reported. How many really?

I'd give the test a go purely to see what the theory of riding on a road is compared to the joys of zone 1 London or 'sharing' the roads around the suburbs.  

As a quid pro quo, I wouldn't give any driver a licence until they've proven knowledge of areas such as advance stopped zones or how to overtake safely.

Of FFS... (and I moan there as a cycle instructor!)

A lot of the greatness of the bike is anyone can get on one and get on with it.  Since the urban back roads of most use to most people have a serious accident rate lower than the Dutch national average and about 1/3 of the national pedestrian average, what is this meant to achieve, apart from wasting money, adding to congestion and the unfitness/obesity epidemic.

We could have a survey on whether it's best to think before anwering surveys, but I suspect the answers wouldn't be very helpful...

But, having cycle-awareness, proper overtaking of bikes etc. built in to the driving test syllabus, absolutely!

Cyclists are routinely subject to abuse, sometimes assault,  for doing the things that Bikeability will teach them. Compulsory training has no value if it's not combined with driver re-training.

Search social media sites and you will find that "riding in the middle of the <expletive> road" is the most common motorist complaint , closely followed complaints of cyclist riding two abreast. Then there's those who genuinely think that cars have priority over bikes. It also wouldn't do any harm to teach them that cycling without a helmet is not illegal.

I remember taking a Cycling Proficiency course when I was at school, but the only thing I can remember about it was when they got us to cycle over ropes laid on the ground to give us an idea of what happens when you start to lose control of the front wheel.

I don't think compulsory anything is good for cyclists as there's simply no way to enforce it and can act as a barrier to cycling. However, I'd welcome all schools teaching how to cycle safely and different tactics to deal with traffic.

What would be far more useful would be compulsory training for drivers in how to deal with cyclists and vulnerable road users. That's the elephant in the room.

@brooksby
They appear in corners then drive you mad with their cuteness.

But what would the training consist of? Actually riding a bike is pretty easy, surely? The tricky bit is dealing with awful road design and poor behaviour by drivers.

I eventually got round to reading Cyclecraft a few years after taking to the roads, only to find most of what was in it was stuff you would work out for yourself if you wanted to stay alive on the roads as they are (e.g. I figured out the idea of 'taking primary' maybe the second time I encountered a choke-point)

And it didn't do anything to deal with the main problem, which was the general dispirting effect of discovering how people behave when they habitually wield a weapon. I find cycling doesn't do much for one's view of human nature.

I honestly don't get the logic of saying "we've made the cycling environment so ghastly, people have to have special training have a chance of being able to face it". I really think its a red-herring.

Maybe there would still be a place for training even in a more cycle-friendly environment, though then most of the 'training' would be about how to behave courteously around large numbers of other cyclists.

(Nothing wrong with teaching children the basics of actually riding without falling off or doing your knees in, etc, much like teaching swimming, as already said, but seems to me what is being talked about in the survey is all about coping with traffic)

As a driver and cyclist with many years riding and driving behind me, it's easy to forget how challenging the road can be to someone without training or experience. This was brought home to me a few months back when someone at work said they would cycle the 2 miles from home to work but still preferred to walk as they were scared of the traffic. At the age of 23 she had no car licence and as a child was not allowed to cycle by her parents who were fearful for her safety. So apart from being a passenger she has absolutely no first hand experience for example of navigating a roundabout or turning right in traffic. Subsequently she and her boyfriend are now both learning to drive and have bought cycles that they use at the weekends on quiter roads.

Personally I would be against compulsory training and the associated costs of licencing which would make cycling impractical for many people, not least children. It's a basic freedom to get on your bike and to go explore the place where you live. However, there is nothing wrong with training per se and it also strikes me that with the right materials there are plenty of opportunities for cycle clubs, shops, schools and other cycle advocates to provide that training, even if informally.  Also a good opportunity to allow people to find out that cycling is basically a safe activity. The more people that are encourgaed to at least try a bicycle, then the more people out there who will understand our needs and challenges.

Make something mandatory and it becomes an obstacle (eg helmets in Australia).
There are plenty who would benefit but if you were to introduce it, I would prefer to see it as cycling proficiency reintroduced in schools (I too am old enough to have that badge). This would have the benefit of halting the steady flow of youngsters who have never seen our roads from anything other than the back seat of an automobile.
There is plenty of training available but alas many adults elect not to do it.

Its difficult, isn't it?

On the one hand, their sample is so fuzzy (as LarryDavidJr has drawn attention to above) as to be basically be following the Daily Fail line of "those bl**dy cyclists, they don't have to do a test, like I did 50 years ago".  Having once ridden a bike is not the same as being a regular or even a frequent cyclist.

But on the other hand, lessons are useful and can help you in being a better cyclist.

But on the other hand, as FluffyKittenofTindalos (do they come out of the fluffy bits or the curves, instead of the angles?) has drawn attention to, cars are driven on the roads by adults, who are legally obliged to pass a test before they are allowed to do so.  But many bikes are owned by minors - are we saying that my nine year old daughter has to pass a genuine test (and have a certificate proving it) before she can ride around the estate?

Many people would be put off by the costs of being legally obliged to have a test/certificate (because, lets face it, if it became a legal requirement then it would suddenly not be cheap) - and if it was a legal requirement then presumably you'd also have to bring in rules about medical circumstances (epilepsy, sudden blackouts, etc), the same as for motorists, and then introduce regular testing, and by then many cyclists have just given up or are riding around and breaking the law...

(I like the fact that riding my bike is a low tech activity, that I can be off the grid with no requirement for ID or a test or anything else...)

It might be easier and cheaper to give away the pages from the Highway code, that are relevant to cycling, free with every new bicycle.

It might be interesting to put up a survey of road.cc readers sometime, to see how many have actually done Bikeability training.

Simple. Make practical cycling experience a pre requiste part of a driving test and licence.

Make cycling a compulsory part of the school curriculum as well.

Teaching people who to cycle safely & confidently is not wrong. Teaching them how ride assertively & "take the lane" to deter dickhead drivers is wrong and should not be needed

Quote:

68 per cent of frequent drivers having ridden a bike on a road at some point

Pretty much everyone in the country has probably ridden on a road at SOME point, even if just as a kid/young adult, so what this actually says is '68 percent of drivers' which is not exactly news is it?

EDIT: Didn't explain the skew of the stats quite right there, what I'm saying is that if you counted anyone who's ridden in the last 6m months that figure would drop a lot I'm suspecting.  Thus the respondenents are mostly motorists and not really 'cyclists' by general description.

Would probably kill off cycling entirely.