Cycling licence 'debate' reignited by Channel 4 show and Scotland Tonight

How much damage do cyclists cause each year vs say shopping trolleys? How many hit & run cyclists have escaped justice vs motorists? My guess is the numbers really aren't that big, but sit in the mind of people easily triggered by the next lazy piece in the papers. If there were tonnes of cases they wouldn't need to go over the same old cases time and time again. Given the most commonly used one ended in a prison sentence it suggests cyclists are already easier to prosecute when you think of the examples of deaths & permanent injury caused by poor & dangerous driving that have escaped justice.

Yeah bloomin cyclists, causing carnage and death every day...

And yet... https://uk.news.yahoo.com/reckless-driver-jailed-six-years-killing-brother-104724271.html

Whats it matter? I could just ride without a licence or insurance,
Or I could be ride pissed hit a more vulnerable road user and just tell the nice policeman "well I hate pedestrians, they're stupid aren't they..."

With all of this media attention, it does make you wonder if there's an organisation 'behind it'..  and I don't even think you'd need to be a tin hat wearer to come to this question?

However how does one go about finding out who or where the 'prompting' might have come from? I'm guessing some car focussed lobby group.. possibly insurance  based as the article alludes to.. 

Of course it all could be a massive coincidence, but as the stories are mostly 'negative led' and as negativity towards encouraging cycling makes no sense to anyone with half a brain (even our buffoon of a PM can see it) ... then it would suggest otherwise.

Want to know what needs to be regulated? Journalism!

They should have finished the segment with a driver vs. cyclist highway code knowledge test!

My money would have been on Alan getting roundly trounced by Diana.

So Alan's points were:

1. Cyclists should have a licence and insurance.
2. Cycling on the road should be banned, there are plenty of country parks for you cyclists.
3. I have a bicycle myself, but would never ride it on the roads because it's too dangerous with all those licenced and insured drivers.

I didn't expect anything less!

"They are the only unregulated group of road users" - This gets my goat... so ignorant and shows that whoever says it think they own the road 

There is not a single western developed democracy which insists on cycling licenses, insurance or a test to ride on their roads. So why so we allow the anti-cycling brigade continue to push for such nonsense? 

This really is becoming the most backwards, inwardly focused nation on the planet. Its about time we stopped allowing this sort of thing oxygen. 

"We need compulsory training and licences for cyclists. They are the only unregulated group of road users," motoring journalist Alan Douglas 

Wait until poor old Alan hears about pedestrians, horse riders, wheelchair users .....

I would like to see IQ tests, compulsory training and licenses for those calling themselves journalists. 

PS If Alan happens to read this, he'll find various types of road user listed, with all applicaple regulations, in something called the Highway Code. It might be a real eye opener.

FFS, not this again. It does always amaze me how many falsehoods can be delivered in such a short space of time.

1) Most cyclists (this source says 80%, but it's a decade old) hold driving licences. 

2) As Diana says, not everyone is going to follow the rules, but it's rarely due to ignorance. Let's face it: no-one is unsure what the big red light means.

3) Cyclists can be prosecuted for road traffic offences. Prosecutions aren't especially common, but it does happen (see e.g. this article). In theory, you can even be disqualified from driving due to offences committed on a bicycle (source).

4) Having a licence is no guarantee that you will follow the law, or be punished if you fail to do so. See e.g. 80% of drivers speeding; countless other examples of law breaking by drivers.

5) Plenty of other road users (e.g. pedestrians) are not required to have licences or insurance.

6) Cyclists can be held liable for damage they cause. Many cyclists will have third-party liability insurance through their home insurance policies, or specific cycling policies. Even without insurance, you can persue the cyclist personally for costs. Most cyclists could afford to cover the cost of repairing a scratch.

7) Being a legal requirement is no guarantee that drivers will actually have insurance. It is estimated that 1 million drivers do not have insurance.

8) Even if they have insurance, there is no guarantee that a driver will stop. Plenty of people (myself included) have experiences of cars being damaged whilst parked (presumably by other motor vehicles) and no details left.

But all of that misses the fundamental issue: the people spouting this nonsense have no actual interest in road safety or making the world a better place; they simply have an irrational hatred of cyclists (or want to get clicks from those who do), and their "ideas" are purely spiteful and propose only to make cycling less convenient and less affordable (at no benefit to anyone). 

A driver would be fined or lose their licence

As brooksby has said, oh no they wouldn't! (not in Lancashire, anyway). Just for a change from all the red light crashing motorists where Lancashire Constabulary takes no action at all and doesn't even acknowledge the report, here's a different triplet of offences with the same outcome. Guess what they are

The perfect topic to increase the ratings of a show dead on it's feet...well done C4