Compulsory Training and Tests Anyone?

PK said:

Is it any wonder that cyclists have a bad reputation?

Just wait till those three yoofs get their first cars.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

In article <[email hidden]>, one of infinite monkeys

at the keyboard of 'Danny Colyer said:

I said:

I'm all in favour, though the cagers may not like my ideas on this:
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukifiruled.htmlOpen ↗

Sorry, I must be starting to fall out of the habit of considering those who read news offline,
even though I still do so myself sometimes. Text below:

Thank you.

That sounds somewhat akin to the regime I would propose.

As it stands, you need a full car license to be allowed to train for HGV or PSV. That's good as far
as it goes: the skills required by a bus or lorry driver include those of a car driver and more.

But the principle needs to be extended. In order to qualify for a car license, you should be
required to demonstrate proficiency on a bike, and to do a certain minimum mileage a year. For the
few who are physically capable of driving but not of cycling, there would be the option of
substituting a moped or motorbike. The principle is to experience the roads from the point of view
of a smaller, more directly vulnerable road user.

--
Hutton: Nobody is asking why Blair was so keen to have a damaging inquiry into a minor side-issue of
going to war.

So, what has he successfully deflected media attention from?

Richard Goodman pondered:

Quoted message said:

Interesting, but, apart from the impracticalities and unfortunate result of probably confining
young people and the elderly to their homes that would result if you're going to go that far, why
not impose RUL's on peds then?

Precisely for reasons of the impracticalities and unfortunate result to which you refer.

Quoted message said:

I would ;-). Why should peds have absolute right of way? Do you think peds don't cause accidents
and aren't careless in their use of the roads at times?

Smiley duly noted. I'm keen on training of all classes of road user (including peds) to be aware
of and show consideration towards all other classes of road user. But licensing peds is going a
step too far.

A line has to be drawn somewhere, and I know a lot of people will say that licensing cyclists would
be a step too far. Personally I believe cycling proficiency training should be mandatory at about
the age I did it (10), but the best reason I can think of for licensing cyclists is that we could
then go on to make that licence a prerequisite to holding a motor vehicle licence.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukdannyOpen ↗
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Quoted message said:

Ye f*****g Gods.

guardian.co.uk0,2763,1125686,00.htmlOpen ↗

My letter to the editor...

" So motorists' organisations, road safety charities and MPs call for cyclists to be subjected to
the kind of restrictions and punishments faced by Britain's "beleaguered drivers"
(guardian.co.uk0,2763,1125686,00.htmlOpen ↗). As a driver and a cyclist I find
this pathetic. It's not Britain's cyclists who are killing over 3500 people and injuring thousands
more on Britain's roads year in, year out; it's Britain's drivers. It seems training and testing
soon loses its efficacy on too many motorists. This is not to suggest that it is acceptable for any
road user to break the law, but the poor beleaguered motorists should be looking in the mirror when
it comes to understanding who are the real dangers on our roads. Perhaps RAC actually means "Ranting
Anti-Cyclists" these days. A motorist who kills is likely to get a fine, a few points on the driving
licence and a short ban. It's only if he or she is really unlucky that they'll get a short spell
behind bars. I suggest to anyone wishing to murder someone, if they use a car as the weapon of
choice, they will get away with it."

I doubt it'll get published.

Cheers, helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on fame &
fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

A motorist who kills is likely to get a fine, a few points on the driving licence and a short ban.
It's only if he or she is really unlucky that they'll get a short spell behind bars.

Apparently motoring offences are petty: news.bbc.co.uk3407465.stmOpen ↗

Jails are being "overrun" by people convicted for motoring crimes and "quite petty" offences, the UK
prisons chief has said.

Martin Narey, head of the newly created National Offender Management Service, said courts needed to
realise the value of community penalties.

In the last decade, the number of people jailed for motoring offences has quadrupled, he
told the BBC.

"Lots of people are in prison now who would not have been 10 years ago."

Changing terms

Mr Narey is taking control of the new organisation, formed by merging the old prison and
probation services.

Speaking on BBC One's Breakfast with Frost, he stressed that Home Secretary David Blunkett had
pushed for dangerous and violent offenders to serve longer jail terms.

But he said: "The Prison Service is being overrun with very many short-term prisoners - lots of
people who are in prison now who would not have been in prison ten years ago.

"Custody rates for some quite petty offending have quadrupled, motoring offences for example.

"Custody rates at the magistrates' courts for men and women convicted of motoring (offences) are
four times higher now than they were 10 years ago. They don't need to be in jail in such numbers.

"The new service which I'll head will work very closely with the judiciary to try to inform them
about the greater effectiveness of community penalties for that sort of offender."

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukdannyOpen ↗
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Not Responding said:

Ye f*****g Gods.

guardian.co.uk0,2763,1125686,00.htmlOpen ↗

Doncha just love the Grauniad:

A spokesman for the RAC said: 'Enforcement is weak. The police must make sure that the rules of the
road are enforced because there are a minority of cyclists *fragrantly* disregarding the law.'

I think someone should make a big stink about this.

Kennedy

"Zog The Undeniable" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Not Responding said:

Ye f*****g Gods.

guardian.co.uk0,2763,1125686,00.htmlOpen ↗

Looks like Eric Martlew has been well-and-truly nobbled. Is BSHIT actually an offshoot of the
Provisional RAC?

Eric Martlew, the MP for Carlisle ... 'We get problems, particularly in London"

In article <[email hidden]>,

W K said:

Eric Martlew, the MP for Carlisle ... 'We get problems, particularly in London"

All MPs are MPs for London. They see their responsibility as being to there first, everywhere else
second. What's good for London is good for the country, apparently. Hence, for example, the
enthusiasm of non-London MPs to encourage a London bid for the Olympics that will pump subsidy into
the already well-provided London sporting scene, while charging the rest of us for the pleasure.

ian

Just zis Guy said:

If this is the same UE Fifth Insurance Directive it specifically excludes criminal liability but
puts civil liability (for pedestrians and cyclists - why are the peds never mentioned?) on a
reverse burden of proof. This is a small subclause. The major effect of the law will be to ensure
that anywhere in the EU, a pedestrian or cyclists who is injured by a negligent driver, will be
able to claim against the driver's insurance. In some places it is apparently possible for the
driver to avoid liability for injuries caused to non-drivers. This is the primary purpose of the
legislation from my reading of it at the time.

If my hazy understanding of this insewerants business is correct, it will introduce the same state
of affairs as already exists in at least one other European nation; and should the "beleagured
motorist" actually be innocent of blame, then neither s/he or her/his insewerants company will be
affected. If they /are/ to blame, then it is entirely right and proper that they should pay through
the nose for it.

I smell Eurosceptic scaremongering.

--

Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================

"Dave Larrington" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If my hazy understanding of this insewerants business is correct, it will introduce the same state
of affairs as already exists in at least one

other

Quoted message said:

European nation; and should the "beleagured motorist" actually be innocent of blame, then neither
s/he or her/his insewerants company will be

affected.

Quoted message said:

If they /are/ to blame, then it is entirely right and proper that they should pay through the
nose for it.

That's my understanding of it.

Quoted message said:

I smell Eurosceptic scaremongering.

Leavened with a pinch of anti-cyclist bigotry (somehow there never seems to be quite enough space to
mention that it also covers pedestrians).

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

"Ian G Batten" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article said:

Eric Martlew, the MP for Carlisle ... 'We get problems, particularly in London"

All MPs are MPs for London.

Quite.

A little bit of enforcement of red lights around westminster and wherever the journos are these days
and it wouldn't be an issue.

Imagine the column inches it would get if the worst of unruly cycling in the UK was in Carlise.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:07:19 -0000, Danny Colyer scrawled: ) A line has to be drawn somewhere, and I
know a lot of people will say ) that licensing cyclists would be a step too far.

Compulsory training, especially having cycling training as a prerequisite for other road vehicles,
is a good suggestion and hard to argue against. Requiring licences for cyclists is probably more
difficult legally, because a lot of laws - the classic one being speeding - differentiate between
cyclists and motor vehicles. I think you'd probably have to look at licensing as a legal term, and
whether there are any generic "licensing laws" that prevent you calling this compulsory certificate
of cycling a licence. Dog licenses and the illegality of not reporting a canine casualty in a motor
accident spring to mind as another tying of licensing to specific legal responsibilities.

I've always felt that placing any mechanism between a human being and their environment should
attract training, and this is the reason why people can't just trust to "instinct" and their own
judgment to contravene the Highway Code. It explains why even the nicest human being can be a
horrible, inconsiderate driver: their nice sensibilities simply do not translate to nice driving.

And although there's no substitute for SPLINK, this could also be one of several arguments
supporting the non-licensing of pedestrians. There are lots of others, of course: prior use, the
lack of fatal pedestrian--pedestrian collisions, the impracticality and foolishness of licensing the
default mode of transport and probably keeping most people in their homes because of it.

J-P
--
GANDHI ENJOYS ENORMOUS PIECE OF CAKE AFTER BRITS CAVE IN TO HUNGER-STRIKE DEMANDS. "Oh!" Exclaims
India's Resistance Leader, His Mouth Stuffed With Cake.

"W K" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Eric Martlew, the MP for Carlisle ... 'We get problems, particularly in London"

Being from the provinces it wasn't lost on me either, nor the RACs survey that came up with the
figures for cyclists transgressions in That London. Out here in the sticks a few cyclists jumping
red lights is insignificant on the Dangerometer whereas the motor vehicles doing so cause near FSD.

--
Pete /Playtime.html"]http:[email hidden]/Playtime.html

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dave Larrington said:

If they /are/ to blame, then it is entirely right and proper that they should pay through the
nose for it.

That "If" is a big hook to hang whinges on.

Surely it boils down to a simpler principle: anyone who wields a deadly weapon in public must bear a
burden of responsibility for the consequences. And that should extend beyond the responsibility not
to be gratuitously stupid/reckless (which of course we all share) precisely because of the power of
their weapons.

If you carry a gun in public, and it goes off and hits someone because you've been jostled in a
crowd, it's clearly an accident. But the principle of responsibility looks much the same.

Quoted message said:

I smell Eurosceptic scaremongering.

There's a lot of it about.

--
Nick Kew

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ian G Batten said:

All MPs are MPs for London.

Exactly.

More than time to abolish that ridiculous institution. Londoners have their own elected mayor - why
should they need the House of Big Boys Games as well?

--
Nick Kew

I watched part of the "Great British Driving Test" on ITV last night (could only force myself to watch the first 10 minutes).

An interesting quote on their web site
http://drivtest.carltononline.com/

"It was a tough fought battle, with the men taking an early lead but women fighting back in round 3. But men just pipped the women to the post, an amazing 42% of men passed the test with women close behind with 40% passing."

Is this "amazing" good or bad that less than half the people taking part passed?

Being generous assume a large number of the self selected respondents don't hold a current driving licence. It still means that about only half of those that do hold a licence could pass the theory test to be able to get a driving licence.

Is it just me or is that rather pathetic?

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:11:20 -0000, "vernon levy" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

🙂I'd be well [censored] if I had to pick up the tab for a cyclist that ran )into me. What's wrong
:with the present system of establishing liability? )

Ditto me for a ped that deliberately walked into me while on the bike. Fortunately, she didn't knock
me off on account I was almost stationary at the time after taking avoiding action - which she
countered. She finally lunged for my handlebars before doing a rolling on the floor trick. I was
well p'd off.
--
Comm again, Mike.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 11:02:23 -0000, "Danny Colyer"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

🙂I wrote: )> I'm all in favour, though the cagers may not like my ideas on this: )>
:speedy5.freeserve.co.ukifiruled.htmlOpen ↗ ) )Sorry, I must be starting to fall
:out of the habit of considering those )who read news offline, even though I still do so myself
:sometimes. Text )below:

Thanks !

🙂 )Road User's Licence ) )I believe that Cycling Proficiency training should be offered to all
🙂children over the age of 8. Children of secondary school age should be )required to pass their
:Cycling Proficiency before being allowed to cycle )in public places. The road skills and Highway
:Code knowledge learnt )during Cycling Proficiency training will be invaluable throughout life.

While I managed perfectly well without any tests, that was in a small town lacking all the fancy
road features seen in many places. Having said that, it does now have a couple ^H^H^H... three one
way streets, and a roundabout (mini) and "traffic lights" (disguised as a pelican crossing). I think
proper education for young cyclists would nowadays be more worthwhile considering the use roads get
now and all the oddities. Knowledge of the HC would also be good. But that applies to peds too !

🙂 )To continue cycling on public highways and public rights of way beyond )the age of 16, a cyclist
:should be required to pass a theory test )(demonstrating a good working knowledge of the Highway
:Code) and a )practical cycling test. Passing these tests would qualify the individual )for a 'Road
:User's Licence' (RUL), allowing him to cycle anywhere it is )legal to do so for as long as the
:licence is valid. A licence would need )to be renewed at 10-yearly intervals by passing another
:theory test and )another practical cycling test.

10 year (or so) licences for all vehicles is a step forward. They should also be tougher than the
first test to reflect the learning of new skills while using the vehicle on the road over the
previous 10 years.

🙂 )I anticipate that some people will object to the cycling requirement of )the RUL on grounds of
:balance problems or other disabilities. This is )not an issue, as any class of street legal solo
:pedal cycle may be used, )including tricycles and hand-cranked machines.

But a triciclist shouldn't be given a licence for a bike - akin to those who pass an automatic car
test can't drive a manual boxed car.

🙂As at present, pedestrians would have ultimate right of way on all roads )except for motorways

Agreed.

🙂and there would be no requirement to hold a RUL in order to )walk on the public highway or public
:rights of way.

Maybe there should - a simple test on courtesy and awareness of other road users and their rights -
it might even include a mild form of ASBO or drunk in charge of a pair of feet.
--
Comm again, Mike.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:23:35 +0000, Pete Barrett
<[email hidden]> wrote:

🙂The sensible thing, and I don't think many people would object, would )be to make cycle training a
:compulsory part of the primary school )curriculum

Same with walking ?
--
Comm again, Mike.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:07:19 -0000, "Danny Colyer"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

🙂Richard Goodman pondered: )> Interesting, but, apart from the impracticalities and unfortunate )>
:result of probably confining young people and the elderly to their )> homes that would result if
:you're going to go that far, why not )> impose RUL's on peds then? ) )Precisely for reasons of the
:impracticalities and unfortunate result to )which you refer. ) )> I would ;-). Why should peds have
🙂> absolute right of way? Do you think peds don't cause accidents and )> aren't careless in their
:use of the roads at times? ) )Smiley duly noted. I'm keen on training of all classes of road user
🙂(including peds) to be aware of and show consideration towards all other )classes of road user.
:But licensing peds is going a step too far. ) )A line has to be drawn somewhere, and I know a lot
:of people will say )that licensing cyclists would be a step too far. Personally I believe )cycling
:proficiency training should be mandatory at about the age I did )it (10), but the best reason I can
:think of for licensing cyclists is )that we could then go on to make that licence a prerequisite to
:holding )a motor vehicle licence.

After, of course, they've got their ped licence ! One that can be revoked at any time =
grounding/curfew - keeps the yobs off the streets.
--
Comm again, Mike.