Would some form of licensing be so bad?

[CrinklyLion]

to add to the anecdata...

i have no idea if the bikeability in any of my 7 primary school is compulsory or voluntary - that's very far removed from my area of responsibility.

but the training is delivered within school time, not as an extra-curricular activity, and they all seem to take part - while i often see a couple of kids sat out on a bench reading in pe lessons, i don't think i've ever seen anyone sitting out from cycle training. year 5/6 kids round here all seem to like riding their bikes!

[jane]

In Southwark, and Lewisham, bike training is not compulsory.  The logistics of that would be practically impossible.  Each child has to have a roadworthy bike, or one that can be made roadworthy very quickly (we 'll organise a Dr Bike beforehand) So, last year, out of a class of 30 year 5's, only ten managed to complete the training. They all wanted to do it, but most didn't have a bike and three bikes were completely unserviceable in the time available. 

[Cunobelin]

...and of course with training comes the problem of compulsion and helmets

In Norwich I believe there has been a decline in the uptake of training following the compulsory use of helmets

Teachers and families (especially in low income groups) have identified this as the main reason
 
These children are excluded from the proven benefits of training in favour of the unproven benefits of helmets

[citoyen]

The only thing that stops more motorists RLJing is the car in front. It's the same with bikes - I'm pleased to report that cycling is getting so popular in London that there are parts of my commute where the sheer number of cyclists forces you to slow down and wait in turn.

Of course there will always be some twat who tries to force his way past and through the red light but as teethgrinder says, such a person is less of a problem on a bike than they would be in a car.

So really what we need is critical mass. Not in the monthly semi-organised rally sense but in the lots of people genuinely doing the same thing by coincidence sense. I bet RLJing isn't a problem in Copenhagen like it is in London.

d.

[plum]

Read my post again. Voluntary schemes, preferably where parents will sign a waiver are easy to manage. I specified compulsory: You try forcing a child onto a bicycle then sending said child home with a broken collarbone and see what reaction you get from its parents.

Are you proposing we ban compulsory PE then? I can't see how the injuries or risks are any worse.

a) There's a difference between PE, which most people agree is a good thing, and cycling, which a large number of people couldn't care less about or even regard as a bad thing. There exist parents who wouldn't allow their children onto the roads on a bike, and would see training as encouraging their kids to go against their wishes.
b) Have you been into a school recently? In many schools PE has been so sanitised in order to avoid physicality that it is classed more as exercise than sport. For example my own school no longer allows sport to be played outdoors when it's raining because of a lawsuit some time ago after a child broke an ankle attempting a sliding tackle.

to add to the anecdata...

Nothing anecdotal about my posts. Fact: There is no compulsory cycle training taking place in a school in this country. Wouldn't imagine anywhere else either. I know this to be so because any activity of this sort requires parents to sign a waiver/permission slip, which they can of course refuse to sign thus disallowing their child from taking part, rendering the training non compulsory by default. It cannot be classed as compulsory if someone has to give permission.

[mrcharly-YHT]

Fact: There is no compulsory cycle training taking place in a school in this country. Wouldn't imagine anywhere else either. I know this to be so because any activity of this sort requires parents to sign a waiver/permission slip, which they can of course refuse to sign thus disallowing their child from taking part, rendering the training non compulsory by default. It cannot be classed as compulsory if someone has to give permission.

Bullcrap.

My children attended a school that has compulsory cycle training.

[Greenbank]

I think people are mixing up what part is compulsory.

Is it compulsory for the school to provide the training, or compulsory for every child to participate?

In my post (back on page 2) I suggested the former. I see no benefit to forcing children to participate in the physical aspect of the cycle training.

[Butterfly]

I think people are mixing up what part is compulsory.

Is it compulsory for the school to provide the training, or compulsory for every child to participate?

In my post (back on page 2) I suggested the former. I see no benefit to forcing children to participate in the physical aspect of the cycle training.

It should be compulsory to provide training, because then they would have to bend over backwards to provide equality, which would mean that there would have to be more availability of adapted and adaptable bikes/trikes - maybe a central stock for each area. This would mean that children who would often just be assumed that they couldn't ride -those with balance problems or who would need a handcycle, for example, would have the oportunity to try them and be facilitated in that. That would give a great amount of potential, motor-free, independance to a lot of people. It would also stick in the mind of others who may need different cycles later in their life.

[Cudzoziemiec]

So really what we need is critical mass. Not in the monthly semi-organised rally sense but in the lots of people genuinely doing the same thing by coincidence sense. I bet RLJing isn't a problem in Copenhagen like it is in London.

d.

Maybe it isn't, but the Danes give the impression of being mostly law-abiding people. India otoh has cm of rljers.

[plum]

Fact: There is no compulsory cycle training taking place in a school in this country. Wouldn't imagine anywhere else either. I know this to be so because any activity of this sort requires parents to sign a waiver/permission slip, which they can of course refuse to sign thus disallowing their child from taking part, rendering the training non compulsory by default. It cannot be classed as compulsory if someone has to give permission.

Bullcrap.

My children attended a school that has compulsory cycle training.

My arse.

Prove it, what was the school? I want to take a look at their curriculum and see for myself. I'll bet all the money in my pockets that there's an opt out somewhere.

[Crumbling Nick]

Back to OP...

Every day, as I ride, I watch people who have no idea how to ride copying those who have even less. What's worse, they don't even know what they don't know. From the simple things - helmets perched on the back of their heads being worse than useless,  through the highway code to the value of simple courtesy. I think we all know the value of training, whether or not you choose to ignore it, wouldn't it be a good idea for everyone to experience that?

Everyday observation of car drivers indicates that most of their road behaviour is copied from other drivers, usually despite the training they have all received. Peer group pressure has much more effect on behaviour than training (or authority, at any level less than being caught and penalised for breaking the law).

I can see no reason why more training would make adult cyclists behave any better than car drivers.

[gordon taylor]

Everyday observation of car drivers indicates that most of their road behaviour is copied from other drivers, usually despite the training they have all received. Peer group pressure has much more effect on behaviour than training (or authority, at any level less than being caught and penalised for breaking the law).

I can see no reason why more training would make adult cyclists behave any better than car drivers.

^^^ This - in spades.

Changing the behaviour of large groups is complex, IMHO. The norms in the behaviour of road users varies significantly by region. Driver behaviour modification has been addressed in the UK, to some extent, by highway design - which seems to be much less effective with bicycles.

New York City has tried to modify cyclist behaviour with three adverts in their "Don't be a jerk" campaign.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/dontbeajerk.shtml

[Ham]

I'd agree wholeheartedly with the complexity of trying to change attitudes, an observation I've made previously is that the only person whose attitudes you can change is your own. I'm always interested to see how much my behaviour affects others; for example, I've often felt that by stopping at red lights others stop (especially those you have seen RLJ-ing previously) and I know that by taking a good line around cyclists when I'm driving, those behind copy me (as opposed to the people in front, if you get my drift).

But saying "I can see no reason why more training would make adult cyclists behave any better than car drivers" misses the point. Car drivers are MOSTLY not that bad, and they are certainly not different animals to cyclists. I would say greater than 90% of car drivers in the UK obey traffic signs and lights. The greatest issues of dangerous lawbreaking in my view are mobile phone usage and casual speeding, I doubt that the attitude change needed to alter that is likely to happen soon. If and hopefully when it does it is likely to be as a result of greater numbers getting on bikes and seeing those activities from a different perspective.

But back to the original point. Yes, I do think that it would be good if cyclists in general came up at least to the low standards set by drivers. There is a utopian day when actually it won't matter if you do, say, turn left on a red light but until then I assert my right to be a vehicle on the road with the same rights and obligations as cars. Painting all drivers as badly behaved, murderous and unthinking is part of the problem.

[Biggsy]

The amount of casual speeding done by car drivers shows that people do what they think they can get away with.  Yes effective licensing* would cut down the amount of RLJing done by cyclists, but we have to consider the bigger picture, and that's what we're doing.

* This would have to include number plates and NPR for cyclists.

[plum]

I might have missed a post so apologies if I'm repeating a question but has it been done before, is there a country somewhere with some sort of licensing in action?

[Ham]

My original point seems to have got a bit lost in the noise, or maybe I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I'm NOT in favour of the idea of licensing but.....

What happens with a car? You have to have a proven basic level of education and ability before you are let loose, that's governed by licensing. In a bike? 'Ere mush - you sit there, twiddle there, off you go - oh and don't forget yer helmet.

My submission is that a many of the issues with cycling arise from ignorance, maybe at the core of that ignorance is a belief by all (cyclists and drivers) that somehow bikes are not proper vehicles. How can that be addressed? Maybe licensing has a role to play in that critical aspect.

[Biggsy]

My submission is that a many of the issues with cycling arise from ignorance, maybe at the core of that ignorance is a belief by all (cyclists and drivers) that somehow bikes are not proper vehicles. How can that be addressed? Maybe licensing has a role to play in that critical aspect.

That is bound to be true to some extent (along with simple anarchy), but what about it?  What's the point of saying that some good would come from licensing if you're not in favour of licensing because of the overall effects?

[Ham]

My submission is that a many of the issues with cycling arise from ignorance, maybe at the core of that ignorance is a belief by all (cyclists and drivers) that somehow bikes are not proper vehicles. How can that be addressed? Maybe licensing has a role to play in that critical aspect.

That is bound to be true to some extent (along with simple anarchy), but what about it?  What's the point of saying that some good would come from licensing if you're not in favour of licensing because of the overall effects?

Because even if my current position is that it wouldn't be a good idea, I'm interested to talk about it and see if my ideas change as there appears to be a germ of sense to the idea. I think it's called debate, or have I got that wrong and debate is all about convincing everyone of what you know is right? 

[Wowbagger]

I'm against any form of licensing. There are plenty of deficiencies in the way lots of people ride their bikes, but at least they are riding their bikes. I suspect that regulation would put lots of them off.

[Biggsy]

Because even if my current position is that it wouldn't be a good idea, I'm interested to talk about it and see if my ideas change as there appears to be a germ of sense to the idea. I think it's called debate, or have I got that wrong and debate is all about convincing everyone of what you know is right? 

Fair enough to explore and debate anything you like, of course.

Ok.  What problems are "poorly behaved" cyclists actually causing?  Some injury and death to themselves.  Very little injury and death to others.  Some poor impression given to others, resulting in some lack of respect from motorists.

Effective licensing might somewhat reduce those things, but it will put many people off cycling, resulting in poorer physical and mental health and a poorer environment.

What else is left to debate?

[robbo6]

 

I might have missed a post so apologies if I'm repeating a question but has it been done before, is there a country somewhere with some sort of licensing in action?

We see the occasional visitor to Ch. BB with an American State registration plate fitted, usually from California, but I've never thought to ask if they are still compulsory or just for show.

[Ham]

What else is left to debate?

How to get more people on bikes, specifically how to get the message through to all that cycling is a rational method of transport that can be indulged by all. In my view, the more mainstream it looks, the more mainstream it will be.

[Crumbling Nick]

Everyday observation of car drivers indicates that most of their road behaviour is copied from other drivers, usually despite the training they have all received. Peer group pressure has much more effect on behaviour than training (or authority, at any level less than being caught and penalised for breaking the law).

I can see no reason why more training would make adult cyclists behave any better than car drivers.

^^^ This - in spades.

Changing the behaviour of large groups is complex, IMHO. The norms in the behaviour of road users varies significantly by region. Driver behaviour modification has been addressed in the UK, to some extent, by highway design - which seems to be much less effective with bicycles.

Ouch! Driver behaviour modification by changes to highway design seems to have resulted in bad driver attitude changes (e.g. "How do I negotiate the latest chicane without slowing down?", rather than the taught approach of "there is a hazard, how should I plan to negotiate it safely?"). I've come to the conclusion that the basic issue is not behaviour but attitude. The highway engineers don't understand risk compensation, which is a central part of attitudes.

New York City has tried to modify cyclist behaviour with three adverts in their "Don't be a jerk" campaign.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/dontbeajerk.shtml

[Cudzoziemiec]

New York City has tried to modify cyclist behaviour with three adverts in their "Don't be a jerk" campaign.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/dontbeajerk.shtml

We've had similar things in the UK aimed at motorists to make it socially unacceptable to drink-drive, not wear a seatbelt and a few other things, and broadly they've succeeded. But it does take decades. It would be interesting to see if NYC's advertising campaign to make cyclists more responsible also succeeds. If it doesn't, is it because cyclists are different, NY is different, or simply down to bad ads? We'll have to come back to this in 2021.

[Biggsy]

What else is left to debate?

How to get more people on bikes, specifically how to get the message through to all that cycling is a rational method of transport that can be indulged by all. In my view, the more mainstream it looks, the more mainstream it will be.

I don't think we will need to try very hard.  The modern cycling boom in central London started naturally as public transport became increasingly expensive and unreliable.  The sheer number of cyclists in central London makes it look mainstream, and so it grows.  Already I'm seeing more people in outer London as well cycling than there were a few years ago.

Cycling will increase in popularity throught the country, and even the world, thanks to rising oil prices and shrinking economies.  New cycling facilities might even help a bit too.  Nothing as horribly nasty as licensing wil be necessary.

I can't imagine how licensing can do more good than harm overall.  It would putt off more people than it would turn on.  I don't think I'd enjoy it even if I had no problem getting and keeping a license and even if it made cyclists behave better.  A large part of cycling enjoyment comes from the feeling of freedom.