Or a pavement test?... or a 'i'm not sure if i'm a cyclist, pedestrian or car so i'm gonna keep swapping pavement for road - and keep EVERYONE on their toes' test?
2007-04-25 04:21:38 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Cars & Transportation ➔ Safety
I live in London and I 100% believe that cyclists should have visible registrations on their bikes as Ken Livingstone suggested. they pay no attention to white lines or traffic lights, don't signal, many don't use lights at night and think nothing of cycling in pairs in the road blocking off all traffic and i swear most of them have been drinking after work. But you just know that if you ever had even a minor accident with one, the driver would always be prosecuted.
2007-04-25 04:32:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Definetely..! My cousin appears in court next month charged with dangerous driving etc. after hitting a cyclist on his motorbike. This was at 11.20pm, the bike had no lights & was in the outside lane of an A class road..! My cousin is now permanently paralysed in the right arm which finished his career as an off shore diver. There were other serious injuries but he,s over them now.
To get back to the Q. Cyclists should need to prove some kind of proficiency before being let loose on the Queens highway, everyone else does..!
2007-04-26 07:40:22 · answer #2 · answered by Merovingian 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. I live in an area where they have created cycle lanes that go alongside most of the pavements on the busier roads - and that seems to work rather well. I think cycle lanes should definitely be introduced into more towns and cities.
The only problem with it is that a lot of drivers like to see them as convenient places to park their cars - which forces the cyclists to either swerve around or go up onto the pavement to avoid hitting them. Maybe it's inconsiderate car drivers like these who should be forced to take another road test. :-)
2007-04-25 10:41:39 · answer #3 · answered by Butterscotch 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe that cyclists should be obliged to pass a test before taking to the road or anywhere other people are co users. Indeed I would support a requirement that all cyclists should have comprehensive insurance cover and , at least, third party cover. This is particularly pertinent where cyclists make use of paths etc utilised by pedestrians.
2007-04-25 05:10:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I am a cyclist I only use my pushbike for recreation (off road riding) when I see a cyclist on the road a lot of the time I think the same, they should have to by law have a licence of some sort as the standard of riding is terrible, but also the lack of courtesy shown by motorists of all descriptions towards cyclists is equally bad.
2007-04-25 04:28:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
A mandatory test? No. A safety class? Yes. In the interest of the rider they should be given a class to inform them of the various hazards to watch out for. Riding in the street, with traffic, presents many new variables which most recreational riders fail to watch out for. I live in Chicago and ride the streets all the time--its much easier getting around the city with my bike than a car. I have had hundreds of close calls and one accident (determined not to be my fault). A safety class would be great for all but a road test is a little overboard.
2007-04-25 04:38:36 · answer #6 · answered by BlazingTrailz 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
My biggest concern is the number of kids riding around without lights - I am amazed parents allow this.
I'm not sure if this still happens but in my day ( around the time of pennyfarthings ). The police would visit our school and give talks on road safety, with particular emphasis on cycling. They seemed very effective.
A compulsory test sounds like a great idea however this would have to be applied to children as well as adults and I wonder if that would be practical?
2007-04-25 04:31:55 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm a cyclist. I ride on the road or the pavement whenever I please. I've never had an accident or caused an accident, and if the traffic lights are red but there's no pedestrians waiting to cross, I'm off!
As long as I am not endangering other peoples or my own safety, what's the problem?
2007-04-25 04:26:27 · answer #8 · answered by livinfortheweekend 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Cyclists must ride on the road or desiganted Cycle paths by law - never the pavement.
Cylcist are supposed to have a cycling proficeincey certificate, I've had mine since I was 7, everyone at school did the test.
2007-04-25 07:06:52 · answer #9 · answered by kingpaulii 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely. They're a complete pain in the backside.
Thing that annoys me the most is the way that they don't seem to think that red lights or pedestrian crossings or basically any road signs apply to them. They just go through red lights, or up on the pavement to avoid them.
2007-04-25 04:25:14 · answer #10 · answered by Wafflebox 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋