Should cyclists be licenced?

[Stuart]

Yesterday, I was walking along the road. I saw a cyclist come haring down the road. He had all the gear (helmet, bright clothing etc). The trouble is, he was on a busy main road, and cycling against the on coming traffic. It's worth noting, at this point, that the road in question has extremely brightly coloured (a lurid shade of green) cycle paths on either side, and the cyclist apparently ignored both.

When he reached the lights, he turned right. Because the lights were red, he decided to mount the pavement and bypass the lights.

This, combined with a report I read a while ago (trying to find a link now) in the Evening standard that said a staggering amount of cyclists have no idea about safe cycling, makes me wonder:

Should the law require that Cyclists be licenced in the same way as other drivers? I think they should.

While bad cycling isn't inherantly as dangerous as bad driving (lets face it, if you are hit by a car, the damage will be far more severe than if you are hit by a push bike), if you cycle badly, you can still put other road users at risk, as well as yourself.

[Scrubbs]

I don't think a licence is going to improve anybodies skill or lack of it
look how many bad car drivers we've got........all with licences

[Paul]

As a cyclist I can only say this.......
definately!
I am sick of seeing ignorant cyclists causing problems on the roads. There are as many bad cyclists out there as there are bad motorists but at the moment there is no way of controling who can and who cannot take a cycle onto the main roads in this country. Something needs to be done and it needs to be done soon.
All bike frames should be stamped at the manufacturers and registered. The people buying them should then be registered against the bikes and should have to be prove themselves safe and competent cyclists before they are allowed on the roads.
Frankly I'm all for a license plate style system for cycles.

[Matt D]

Cambridge is full of idiotic unsafe cyclists, and as a pedestrian, I despise them all.

Always going straight through red-lights at pedestrian crossings, mounting the pavement at other red lights, cycling without lights, etc etc.


I definitely think they should have to pass a test & be licensed before being allowed to cycle.

[Paul M]

They should pass a test before they ue public roads, just like everyone else does.

[Kliro]

Nice idea, but what about all the kids who go on bikerides?? Because surely there would be an age limit if there were a test?

afaik all bikes are stamped with a unique number on the underside of the frame - you can register this number with the police.

[trebor]

they should also have insurance as well

I don't think that there should be a licence. Rules of cycling should be taught in schools maybe, about one lesson in PSE or something. I like the freedom of not needing a licence, and many cyclists do use the road responsably, this freedom shouldn't be taken away because a few cyclists are incapable of rational thought and lack common sense. If there were licences for cycling, then I fear that cyclist tax and cyclist insurance would soon follow and the government would capitalise on cyclists just as it currently does with motorists. I don't actually think a licence is required, just a bit of common sense. Although, admittedly, this is lacking in a lot of the population.

[Halcyon]

I definately think they should pass a test.
The car theory test would be good enough and it is mostly common sense anyway. It would help make people aware of the highway code.

In fact, I sometimes wonder if people ever read the highway code.
It costs £1.50 in the shops and would really help out a lot of the people on the roads who just don't seem to have a clue what they are doing.

[Tuftus]

As a road user, they should have to have the same restrictions as other road users - ala motorcylclysts, car users etc

And what about horses?

[Rob]

I don't think there is a need for licencing, so much as proper enforcement. Cyclists need to be aware that they are road users and subject to the road traffic acts like anybody else. Trouble is the anti speeding camera brigade would no doubt start jumping up and down that the police should target real criminals if they started to stop cyclists.

That cycles don't display number plates means unless they are stopped at the time they just cannot be easily idenfitifed. Maybe that's an option.

Insurance should be compulsory, but might be seen as another layer of beaurocracy, and a money spinning opportunity for the insurance companies.

Perhaps a large part of the blame for these issues should be laid at the hands of the sol called traffic planners. I have traffic lights near me that are supposedly set to identify someone is on the road waiting for lights to change. They do for cars but aren't sensitive to cycles, or are in the wrong place for the nice cycle marked area on the street - guess who gets frustrated? Even better we get "Town Planning Gain" modified road junctions which include cycle lanes. Trouble is the lanes start 10m from a roundabot, divert the cyclist onto the pavement where they have to give way from every entry and exit for vehicles, and then stops 10m past the roundabout at a ramp back onto the road where cars regularly park. Other cycle routes go a long way, until the busy junction where there is no space so they stop. No wonder cyclists show no respect.

[bmxbandit]

i really don't think having licensing / insurance would do anything at all.

where pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles are physically seperated, there are very few problems - i'd say this is the way forward. at the moment cyclists generally have the choice of trying not to annoy pedestrians, or trying to avoid bad / inattentive drivers.

[Strzelecki]

As a cyclist who rides to work every day on busy city roads, I think some sort of licensing may do the trick. It really annoys me when I see other cyclists riding dangerously. I personally think it should be compulsory to wear a helmet if you are going to ride on the public highway, on the spot fine and removal of your bike to the nearest police station would sort it. There is no excuse not to wear a helmet, they don't have to be expensive, granted I could be considered to 'have all the kit', but a decent helmet starts from around £25, not much for something that could save your life and not ruin a fellow motorists life if they accidentally knocked you off. I am insured and always wear a helmet and have a full set of lights attached as I often have to ride home after 8pm. I sometime wish fellow motorists would give cyclist who are cycling properly a bit of respect though, those green boxes at traffic lights are for cyclists to stop in not motor vehicles, and cruising alongside a cyclists in a single lane with cars in front when you cannot actually overtake them is also stupid and dangerous. The bad cyclist make it worse for us all though as other motorists think we're all the same and treat us like we are.

[Stuart]

Undoubtedly, better town planning would help. But, I do know of several places where cycle lanes are present, but cyclists ignore them (like the aforementioned road above). Another part of the problem is that certain cyclists have this idea that they shouldn't have to take into account other road users.

I have seen cyclists do some silly things, the one above being one example, and a cyclist trying to nip round a bus that was just pulling out being another. I've also had a friend moan that when the green man appeared, he didn't have time to dismount, go onto the crossing, ride across then go on to the pavement on the opposite side and ride off before the lights changed to green. He moaned, until I pointed out that what he was doing was against the law.

Note: I am not having a go at cyclists. I realise that it is a few cyclists that give the rest a bad name. It's just that I think that people (all road users) should be careful on the roads.

[Russ]

I'll be sure to arrange insurance for my daughter as soon as the stablisers come off her bike....