Following the death of a pedestrian in the UK this year, the debate as to whether cyclists should be required to pass some sort of proficiency test has intensified. While there seems to be a consensus around the advantages of cycling training, the area of testing is quite divisive. Proponents believe that testing would make cyclists more seriously invested in safety, but opponents fear the test would drastically decrease the number of cyclists.
Some Facts
In 2015 in the UK, there were 96 injuries and 2 deaths caused by cyclists. While this pales in comparison to vehicular accidents, the fact that cyclists are not required to be knowledgeable about safety is of growing concern. The number of accidents among cyclists is even greater, there were 3,337 serious cycling accidents in the UK in 2015 alone, many of them fatal.
Training – Yes, Testing – Maybe…
Research shows that training is definitely effective in improving the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. Cyclists who have a driver's license are more responsible and alert. It's clear that road-educated bicycle riders better understand road signs and laws and comply to them. However, when it comes to testing things get more complicated and many questions arise: Is it fair to force all future cyclists to pass an exam when they don't have equal access to training? What level of testing should be required? At what age? Wouldn't it discourage many future cyclists from even getting on their bikes just like the UK helmet law diminished the number of bicyclists? In the US, by the way, the helmet law, did not effect the number of cyclists. Is law abidance the real problem or is it a lack of sufficient and safe infrastructure?
A recent survey of Toronto voters found that while 57% were in favor of adding special bike lanes, 60% first wanted cyclists to meet some sort of cycling proficiency requirement and to be licensed.
If you ask cab drivers the answer would probably be yes to testing. For them, bicyclists can be a menace, as they dart in and out of traffic forcing drivers to take sudden evasive measures. Drivers’ forums are filled with complaints about cyclists who do not follow the rules of the road, going through stop signs and traffic lights and coming dangerously close to cars.
A recent survey of Toronto voters found that while 57% were in favor of adding special bike lanes, 60% first wanted cyclists to meet some sort of cycling proficiency requirement and to be licensed.
If you ask cab drivers the answer would probably be yes to testing. For them, bicyclists can be a menace, as they dart in and out of traffic forcing drivers to take sudden evasive measures. Drivers’ forums are filled with complaints about cyclists who do not follow the rules of the road, going through stop signs and traffic lights and coming dangerously close to cars.
What about Optional Testing?
California has an opt-in bicycle licensing program that cities can choose to join. Los Angeles tried it for a while, but there were so many cyclists that skipped the procedure that city officials decided to opt out. The major hurdle for municipalities is budgetary—how to afford a database to keep track of a huge cycling population
Training for All
Cyclist interest groups in LA oppose a requirement for licensing, but they are in full agreement with the need for education and training. The fact is, cyclists are also at risk of being injured by other cyclists who fail to follow the rules. Most cycling advocates are in favor of a unified program of education. They add, though, that it would help also for automobile drivers to take some training since there are many rules that apply to cyclists’ rights on the road that are being ignored by drivers.
