"Compulsory cycling as part of driver training ..."

[clackers]

" ... would be an ideal solution."

Those wacky academics ...

http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archi ... 12walk.pdf

[casual_cyclist]

I don't know about other states but in WA, driver training and testing is pretty basic. Drivers are only expected to reach a quite minimum standard before getting their licence. A licence is considered a right and not a privelege and new drivers are not expected to work too hard for their licence. If we took driver training, testing and licencing seriously we would:
- have a minimum number of lessons and driving hours for cars which would require automatic and manual small and large cars
- have a minimum number of lessons/driving hours for: vans, trucks, busses, bicycles, scooters and motorbikes
- include advanced driver training as part of the requirement to obtain and licence

All of this would have to be logged and form part of the assessment. Why?

Vans can have limited visibility and non-van drivers need to be aware of what the driver can and can't see. The best way for people to learn this would be to drive a van. Trucks and busses have manoeuvring issues and take a long time to stop. The best way for people to learn this would be to drive a truck or bus. Bicycle, scooter and motorbike riders are more vulnerable than other vehicle drivers. The best way for people to learn this would be to ride a bicycle, scooter and motor bike.

Although this will never happen, it is fun to dream. On the other hand, imagine L-Platers in trucks and busses!

[Xplora]

It is far easier to make the penalties resulting in licence loss and unlicensed driving severe to send the message that a licence is serious business.

[g-boaf]

I'd make them ride 200km a week for 5 weeks before they can get their drivers licence. This might bring the average motorist around to a different point of view.

[Big_Red]

Not to mention making them a bit fitter too...

[il padrone]

I'd make them ride 200km a week for 5 weeks before they can get their drivers licence. This might bring the average motorist around to a different point of view.

Few European urban cyclists would ride anything like this distance. But they ride their bikes every day, for all sorts of uses (virtually none of which include 'cyclesport', 'training' or 'bunch rides').

[g-boaf]

I'd make them ride 200km a week for 5 weeks before they can get their drivers licence. This might bring the average motorist around to a different point of view.

Few European urban cyclists would ride anything like this distance. But they ride their bikes every day, for all sorts of uses (virtually none of which include 'cyclesport', 'training' or 'bunch rides').

Who said anything about bunch rides and sport cycling (other than yourself).

I'd actually thought they should do that solo in wind, rain if the conditions present themselves.

Make it a tough, mentally and physically.

[il padrone]

Who said anything about bunch rides and sport cycling (other than yourself).

People who do more than 200kms in a week (average) tend to be the enthusiast cyclist, who trains and rides with fellow racers. Certainly in Europe, which is what I was talking about (and where intensive cycle-training education is more common in some countries). Most ordinary riders do nothing like this distance and are very skilled, on their bikes and in the car.

[human909]

Who said anything about bunch rides and sport cycling (other than yourself).

I'd actually thought they should do that solo in wind, rain if the conditions present themselves.

Make it a tough, mentally and physically.

Why would you do that? Why do you want to make people hate cycling? Why would you make them ride distances that most cyclists would NEVER cover in a week?

If you think cycling is about being fit and being tough then great, but it certainly isn't what me or my friend see about cycling. And it certainly isn't going to appeal to most people wanting a practical method of commuting.

[Xplora]

I think boaf is making a suggestion that actually makes the licence a challenge to get, and worthwhile to protect. Destroy the notion that a licence is mere lip service.

[g-boaf]

I think boaf is making a suggestion that actually makes the licence a challenge to get, and worthwhile to protect. Destroy the notion that a licence is mere lip service.

Bingo! We have a winner here! When they've done the hard yards to get that licence - they will appreciate it more. And they might have a bit of respect for cycling and cyclists in general.

[il padrone]

When they've done the hard yards to get that licence - they will appreciate it more. And they might have a bit of respect for cycling and cyclists in general.

Yes, what happens mostly in Europe I believe. For example, in Italy we saw many auto-scuola cars being driven about (by learners), but there was no evidence of the L-plater driving with papa. All learner driving is done through lessons at the 'scuola'. However there is no requirement for cycle use beforehand, and even in the Netherlands where kids train for their bicycle permit at school, no-one woud demand a mileage requirement. In Europe they generally are trying to make cycling and walking easier and safer, in the towns and cities at least.

As H909 asked "why would you want to make bicycle riding harder?"

[Mulger bill]

Yep, make the licensing requirement torturous and expensive enough so that it sticks more.

Bring back traffic school for kids too! Let 'em learn sense and rules on simulated roads with other kids on bikes as the traffic.

[jasonc]

I used to work with a bloke who was a motorbike rider. One of his many wacky ideas was that to earn a drivers license you should have to survive on a motorbike for 6 months first. The theory was that if they survived, they'd deserve a drivers license and actually understand how to behave on the road to boot.

The consequence would be increased road toll. The affect would be predominantly on those who we probably complain about in the MM thread now...

I agree.

[Percrime]

So do I.

However when I got my victorian motorcycle learners I was 17. That was as young as you could be to get a bike or car learners

Now you get your car learners at 16 You have to do about a trillion hours.. at least 5 times the hours you have to do to get a PPL. Less study but. SO you are going to be spending all that time learning off your dad

BUT get this. You have to be 18 to get your bike learners. When did they sneak that is?

So we are steadily going the opposite way

[ironhanglider]

Make getting the licence harder, sure. Makes it more valuable to get.

Make drivers who have their licence suspended to have to start from scratch again through L and P plates. Makes it more valuable to keep.

P plates at least don't remove the privilege of driving, but do operate like a good-behaviour bond.

Cheers,

Cameron

[DavidS]

I think the hours requirement is very good. I think I started driving after about 15 hours of lessons. That said, I would have had no-one to get lessons off so I would have been stuffed as I would not have had the money to get that many lessons. They want to do this they need to offer free lessons to those who don't have parents who can teach (my mother can't drive).

I would add that all Melbourne licenced drivers should spend a couple of shifts in the front of a tram. Not driving, just seeing what happens as a 50 tonne vehicle with no steering is driven around our roads. They would learn a lot about why they shouldn't be stupid in front of trams and also get some very valuable lessons about reading the road.

DS

[queequeg]

Now you get your car learners at 16 You have to do about a trillion hours.. at least 5 times the hours you have to do to get a PPL. Less study but. SO you are going to be spending all that time learning off your dad

I think I got my PPL at around the 55 hour mark. I think at the time the bare minimum hours you could have was about 40 before you were permitted to sit the test, and that was after you achieved the minimum score in the theory exam.

Just think though, if they introduced a driving licence scheme similar to what is required for a PPL, I reckon 50% would never pass. Some people just have no clue what is going on around then, can't read dynamic situations and just have no basic spatial awareness (2.5 metre car + 80cm wide cyclist does not fit in 3m wide lane). Those people need to be kept away from cars.

[casual_cyclist]

Now you get your car learners at 16 You have to do about a trillion hours.. at least 5 times the hours you have to do to get a PPL. Less study but. SO you are going to be spending all that time learning off your dad

I think I got my PPL at around the 55 hour mark. I think at the time the bare minimum hours you could have was about 40 before you were permitted to sit the test, and that was after you achieved the minimum score in the theory exam.

Just think though, if they introduced a driving licence scheme similar to what is required for a PPL, I reckon 50% would never pass. Some people just have no clue what is going on around then, can't read dynamic situations and just have no basic spatial awareness (2.5 metre car + 80cm wide cyclist does not fit in 3m wide lane). Those people need to be kept away from cars.

I agree there are some people that just should not be allowed to drive. My brother is one of them. He has crashed so many times I have lost count. Say someone wants to be a pilot. They don't mess around with the training or the testing. You don't get a licence until you can properly fly a plane. It's a shame the standard for a motor vehicle is not higher.

[human909]

More time required to get your license isn't a problem, though a strong training regime would not be a bad thing.

It is about attitude. Than attitude start far earlier than when kids get their Ls. Besides more training won't help cyclists when the ones doing the training (parents and 'professional' instructors) are just as bad around cyclists as the rest of the mob.

I got my license after 20hours. Fortunately for me as a 19 year old I had no illusions about my ability. I was aware that I was not a fully capable driver. So I continued to drive cautious even if there wasn't a supervising driver next to me. But I never saw a car as a toy. I didn't grow up being taught by my parents that a car was a toy. So I drive sensibly and safely and have continued throughout my life.

[queequeg]

I agree there are some people that just should not be allowed to drive. My brother is one of them. He has crashed so many times I have lost count. Say someone wants to be a pilot. They don't mess around with the training or the testing. You don't get a licence until you can properly fly a plane. It's a shame the standard for a motor vehicle is not higher.

When I got my Ls (in QLD) at the age of 21 (I lived in Tokyo prior to that, no need for a car there!), my instructor (parents were still in Japan) had one lady who fitted into that category. Had failed the test 10 times and just would not listen, and just kept doing the same stupid things over and over again. He told me that she should never get a licence, for the safety of everyone else on the road.
I am thankful I had all my lessons done by a professional instructor. There is no reason this can't be made mandatory, just a lack of political will (and a lack of qualified instructors, so we'd need time to get some trained up!).

In a way, flying planes is far easier than driving a car because you don't have to deal with morons that think flying is a right. It costs a lot of money to get your licence, and just as much to keep it current. Therefore, the licence has an intrinsic value. If the licence gets revoked by CASA, there is "P plates for a year" escape clause. If they deem you unfit to hold a licence, end of story.

[DavidS]

I agree about professional instructors. I had a good one. I remember quite a few things he taught me but one sticks in my mind. He told me to turn further up the road, in preparation to turn I braked. He asked me why I was braking. I replied: so I could turn. He then said he knew that but no other driver did as I indicated after turning. Little things like that, and the attitude it taught were invaluable.

My daughter is learning to drive and will do the test soon. She is a bit hesitant as she had a very bad accident (not her fault, cops were talking about charging the other driver - she actually dealt with it better than a lot of experienced drivers). I have been trying to instil an attitude in her that driving is not something you do lightly. The lessons they learn now, and the attitude you convey are very important. I'm also trying to teach a lot of the skills of reading the road which I think a hell of a lot of drivers are woeful at. Reading the road and being able to anticipate things can prevent a lot of accidents.

DS

[toolonglegs]

I got cut up by a driving instructor a week ago... Couldn't wait 200 meters to get in a driveway!.
It compulsory here... Can't wait to have that cost times 2 in one hit with twins!.
Probably cheaper to come back to Oz for the summer holidays and buy a cheep car and go exploring while teaching the kids to drive!.

[gorilla monsoon]

Interesting. The motoring writer in our local paper was advocating the exact same thing a few weeks ago. Reckoned people should have to ride a pushy or a small capacity scooter as part of the licence approval process. Absolutely agree with him.

[Xplora]

Ultimately we have a difficult and broken system for road rules, because pedestrians have responsibilities but the law of the jungle is the only rule they follow. Bikes have responsibilities too, but the law of the jungle has a big impact on how they behave. Cars hurt, avoid at all costs. No one is stupid, regardless of how agro and brave they are. Exposing drivers to different situations, and helping them to realise the gravity of their decision to drive, can only assist. I think the motorbike time is more valuable than the bicycle simply because the penalty for failure is much worse (and let's face it, we are trying to put more skills on the road - if you can't balance a moto, you don't have the skills for a car), while creating the same awareness education.

I reiterate my first point - you have to make the failure of a driver to be so unpalatable that they can't consider a stupid move like breaking traction in an uncontrolled way, or racing mates, or close shaving people. It's not different to pointing a loaded gun at people. Penalise to reflect that. We have the technology and capacity to finally say "there is no excuse now". We're in the ridiculous situation where people drive big SUVs to "see" better, while dramatically lowering the safety of the people inside and outside the car. You cannot physically see around those cars. The solution is far worse than the problem they seek to solve. This kind of dumb response to the problem is not something that the community can sit back and accept.