Why Are Many Drivers So Anti-Cyclist In This Country?

[Hedgecutter]

You are more likely to be injured if you are the operator of a bicycle than the driver of a car in a collision. The risk is greater for a cyclist yet the level of competency required to operate a bicycle legally is null. The level of risk is higher for a cyclist than a driver.

The epilepsy thing ties in nicely, Davey was a very proficient and experienced cyclist. He took little fits regularly and lost his motor vehicle licence for that. Davey died because his face was splattered into the road having had a fit. It happened just outside the pub, Davey was not drinking, and friends of mine have been left traumatised by the injuries they saw. If Davey had not been allowed to cycle the likelihood is that I'd be greeting him in town today as he would not have fallen off his bike at approximately 30 miles per hour. He was not fit to drive and obviously he was not fit to cycle, a licencing system would have prevented his death.

The original issue was that unlike motors, cyclists don't just use roads and those that do very frequently travel slower than 30mph. Banning all folk like Davey from bikes would take away the option of what are otherwise perfectly safe activities elsewhere. As unfortunate as it is and sounds, Davey's accident sounds a bit of a freak one if the face was involved. However, if we stopped everything where any risk was involved then it wouldn't necessarily make the world a better place.

Additionally, people with epilepsy can get their licence back when (quote):

• the driving agency is satisfied that as a driver you are not likely to be a source of danger to the public.

I.e. it's not so much to do with danger to one's self (i.e. Davey's case). Regardless of the higher chance of injury to myself if I hit a car whilst on a bike, there's a much, much higher chance / risk of causing serious damage / injury to something else if I did the same in a car... that's what seems to matter here.

PS. MultiQuote

[stonedsailor]

The original issue was that unlike motors, cyclists don't just use roads and those that do very frequently travel slower than 30mph. Banning all folk like Davey from bikes would take away the option of what are otherwise perfectly safe activities elsewhere. As unfortunate as it is and sounds, Davey's accident sounds a bit of a freak one if the face was involved. However, if we stopped everything where any risk was involved then it wouldn't necessarily make the world a better place.

Additionally, people with epilepsy can get their licence back when (quote):

• the driving agency is satisfied that as a driver you are not likely to be a source of danger to the public.

I.e. it's not to do with danger to one's self (i.e. Davey's case). As a motorist, there's a much, much higher chance of causing serious damage / injury than you would if you hit something / somebody on a bike.

Davey was not just a danger to himself though. What if it had happened in front of a motorcyclist or a push-bikist? If a motorist is deemed safe by the dvla all well and good but this was not the case for Davey, your point is moot.

Do you believe that training and certification for all road users is a bad thing? If so, why?

[Unleash The Nade]

Sorry mate, get your cheap thrills somewhere else