"Theo Bekkers" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> TimC wrote:
>> Theo Bekkers (wrote
>
>>> Whilst I agree with what you say above, that competence on a bicycle
>>> certainly is desirable and a good way to learn roadcraft, I find it
>>> difficult to understand why a person _must_ have competence on a
>>> bicycle to obtain a driver's licence. To me, it makes less sense
>>> than having competence riding a horse to get a licence to drive a
>>> horse and buggy.
>
>> Here's a good justification: if you can't aquire the competantency to
>> ride a bike, then you probably will never be able to aquire the
>> competancy to drive a car (where I define competancy as being that
>> which about 80% of current drivers do not currently have -- ie, the
>> dangerous idiots who feel it justified to overtake on double white
>> lines around a blind corner -- higher proportions in Greensborough).
>> You'll do much less damage to other people, being incompetant at the
>> former rather than the latter.
>
> Tim, I'm not really trying to be difficult, but I really can't see that
> the roadcraft you will learn on a bicycle, and only on a bicycle, is so
> critical that it should be compulsory to have that experience before you
> are allowed to operate any other vehicle. I just can't.
>
> I can tell you the roadcraft that I can learn from observing cyclists on
> the road is not something I would like to see car drivers practice.
> Running red lights, even after stopping and looking both ways. Riding
> around in bunches inches away from each other is another. I used to work
> with a guy who is from England and worked for some time also in Ireland
> and he tells me that, back then, it was illegal to race on the public
> road. Racing being defined as traveling in a bunch or peloton. Their
> solution was to time-trial.
>
> My personal opinion is that riding in a bunch on a public road is already
> illegal here and should be enforced as it is a dangerous practice,
> encourages people to do illegal things (lie red lights and crosswalks),
> and can injure people other than the participants. I personally don't give
> a **** if the willing participants hurt themselves.
>
> I think even a casual observation of cyclist behaviour show that they are
> not the best role-model for safe use of roads, and I do not think that
> teaching people that those behaviours are a mandatory model for drivers is
> a good idea.
>
> Theo
It seems pretty obvious, then, by using your observations, that there IS a
case for formal cycling training. The unsafe behaviours you observe in
cyclists indicate that at least there is insufficient training and
insufficient policing. Imagine if motor vehicle drivers were not formally
trained and tested - their behaviours would probably be similar to the
cyclists you observe.
The other side of formal training is that the "I didn't know the rules"
excuse is removed. That means that illegal behaviours can be better policed.
The cops wouldn't have to contend with the "I was untrained - it's society's
fault" defense and could get on with the job of enforcing the law.
I doubt that formal training would eliminate the behaviours you describe,
but it would certainly go a long way toward getting people to think of a
bicycle as more than a toy or a hobby. If all road users considered bicycles
as a legitimate vehicle, not just a hobby, then the expectation of proper
behaviour is raised. Poor behaviour is more frowned upon and overall
behaviours improve. Think of the drink driving campaign. I remember way back
when driving with a few under the belt was considered a minor peccadillo - a
little 'tut-tut' was about it.
Now it's considered very differently and social pressure has reduced the
incidence of drunk driving. People don't want to be considered a ********
for driving drunk. The social pressure has done more to modify behaviour
than the policing and that social pressure was brought to bear by the
'dickheaqd' campaign. That campaign also made it easier for the cops to
prosecute because drink driving became a thing for which it is considered
that punishment is fair.
Similarly, now there's a degree to which the police think they have better
things to do than prosecute cyclists and drivers don't consider bikes to be
legitimate largely because of the lack of rule enforcement; that lack
promotes the idea that cyclists are not worth the effort to punish. Rather
patronising, I think.
Cheers,
Frank
