Ride to survive

- June 17th, 2010

Contrary to what many cycling unionists believe, most motorists do not want bicycles banned from roadways. What the majority want is bad cyclists banned from roadways.

wrong-way cyclist

Shutterstock image

In order to overcome this, governments should stop doing everything in their power to penalize motorists in big cities (for the sake of encouraging bicycle use) and start educating and penalizing cyclists much in the same way car and truck road users are educated and penalized.

But don’t take my word for it; a reader offers some insights and suggestions in light of recent column on cycling/motorist confrontations: “As a motorist my biggest fear is colliding with a cyclist,” writes Alan Penn.

Mr. Penn sees the problem as fourfold – Canadian cyclists aren’t licensed or insured; they don’t obey the rules of the road; they’re completely untrained to ride in traffic-congested city cores and they’re uneducated on making themselves visible (especially in the use of reflective clothing under dark conditions).

bicycle_fix

Shutterstock image

He offers the following suggestions – license all cyclists and their equipment and require them to carry insurance (just like other road users); educate cyclists on the rules of the road and proper clothing to wear, including mandatory helmet use; enforce the rules of the road through fines and suspensions (as with other road users); and introduce a Cycling Proficiency Test similar to that available in the UK.

According to www.cycle-n-sleep.co.uk, “Cycling and road safety organisations have joined together with the Department for Transport to create a new National Standard for Cycle Training … for children and adults, in real situations under the supervision of qualified instructors”

It’s a two-pronged approach beginning with the National Cycling Proficiency Test “to develop observation and manoeuvrability skills, introduce the Highway Code for Young Road Users, teach the importance of cycle maintenance and hazard awareness, and provide information and advice on being conspicuous and wearing protective headgear.”

Our kids don’t get that. They don’t even have adults setting good examples, often overlooking helmet use because “I never wore one and nothing bad ever happened.”

helmet wearers

Shutterstock image

The second part is the three-level National Standard Cycle Training, which in a closed course teaches bicycle control and handling skills, including proper use of gears; progresses to an introduction to on-road training; and finishes off with advanced training on how to cope with busier roads and hazards.

By the time children graduate Grade 8, they’re trained to safely and respectfully share the road with motor vehicles, though any adults who want to upgrade skills can take instruction from various cycling groups.

Here, we believe restricting motor traffic to make room for cyclists will solve all the dangers associated with two disparate forms of travel.

As Mr. Penn asks, “How many cyclists need to die, and motorists taken to court, before the ‘powers that be’ rectify this?”

4 comments

  1. Vaughan S Radcliffe says:

    This piece masquerades as a public safety message and strikes a pose of concern for cyclists’ wellbeing but the closing lines make the real agenda pretty clear. Cyclists are to, “safely and respectfully share the road with motor vehicles” and “restricting motor traffic to make room for cyclists” would be a tragic mistake. In Ontario it is proposed that the province join many US states in requiring by law that drivers give cyclists at least three feet of clearance when passing. This would bring real change on the roads. As a start, it would challenge the entitled behavior and disregard for cycist safety that grips some drivers whenever they might have to slow down or move over for benefit of another road user.

    I rode my bike home from work this evening, and was passed by the driver of a full size Cadillac, who took the time to roll down his window and shout, “Get off the road a–hole.” Mr Duarte’s column comes in the guise of a plea for road safety but his message to cyclists is essentially the same as the philosopher in the Caddillac. Cycists must get off the road, and motorists must not make any accomodation or experience a moment of delay. Most cyclists drive too, and as a driver I sense that drivers who abuse cyclists are the same ones who abuse other drivers. They are the speeders, the cut off artists, the red light runners: we have all seen them. A three foot rule is a good start, but substantial fines, driving bans and full restitution to victims are all appropriate measures in cases of wreckless, bullying behavior on the road. Drivers who pit their 4,000 lb vehicles against helpless cyclists deserve to face the full force of the law.

  2. Dan says:

    If the goal is to encourage more people to get out on their bikes then making them get a license and insurance will certainly negate that. I’m sure the government and insurance companies will back that plan since it will mean more money for them but think of the casual cyclist or the commuter who’s helping out the environment. I commute every day and I very rarely see a “bad” cyclist, just as I rarely see a “bad” driver. They are a small percentage of what’s out there. What I would like to see more of are cycling lanes in downtown streets, dividers on roads that are simply small bumps to remind drivers they are encroaching on another lane but still allow cyclists the freedom to easily get out of them when needed. Most of all I would like bike lanes to be designed by cyclists. Too often I’ll see a bike lane only on one side of the road, or disappear when you need it most.

  3. Cyclists that go on about their legal rights always amuse me…. because you can be right… and you can also be dead. In a collision a car will always fare better than cyclist. I rode a bike for years, and accepted the inherent dangers. I complained about drivers who didn’t care for my right of way but accepted that I’d rather give them the right of way then end up getting hit. I see cyclists today who will put themselves in the line of fire to prove that they are right… this is just silly. Even with all the cops we have on the streets, we don’t have enough to police motorist-cyclist altercations. It’s all about adding bike lanes that don’t allow access to rushing motorists – perhaps lining the lanes with those temporary pedestrian crossing posts they have in the US. This way they can be removed in the winter when bike traffic is minimal and motorists need all the help can get to drive.

  4. Alan P says:

    As someone who has nearly been run over by a cyclist whizzing down the side-walk,just exiting a store, the question is,what protection is afforded the pedestrian if hit and as a result severely injured and unable to work?It is a sidewalk,not a sidecycle.
    Having a requirement to be tested on the rules of the road,hand signals,general cycling proficiency etc as in the UK,will save many cyclists from serious injury and is surely a necessity given the heavy traffic volume now endured by all road users.

Leave a comment

 characters available