UK motor insurance firm calls for mandatory cycle training and testing

Bunnyhopper

Insurance firm under fire as it urges [UK] minister to make cyclists undertake compulsory training and testing

Campaign backed by Gary Lineker and - initially - BikeRadar attracts criticism from cyclists

An open letter from a motor insurance company to Secretary of State for Transport Justine Greening that called for all cyclists to be required to “undergo compulsory training and testing before they take to the road” has attracted strong criticism from cyclists on social media channels including Twitter.

Not content with advertising crisps Lineker now wants to discourage cycling, and says cyclists who object are "only the uncompromising extremist ones." He's an investor in the motor insurance company and presumably also has shares in manufacturers of defibrillators and obesity drugs.

http://road.cc/content/news/63952-insurance-firm-under-fire-it-urges-minister-make-cyclists-undertake-compulsory

hardCopy

UK motor insurance firm can f#ck off.

Why would bike radar back this?

Is Gary Lineker becoming the UK's Gay Byrne?

Cookie_Monster

Let's be honest though, a bit of general road usage training wouldn't go amiss. Schools should be covering it as a module or similar for a semester. Rules of road, cycle craft and a bit of driving teaching would be of great benefit to society IMO. Certainly more relevant than religion or Irish at this stage.
Expand the theory test to include a few cycling / bicycle related questions, tack it onto the above school course and bobs your teapot for testing.

Capt'n Midnight

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Let's be honest though, a bit of general road usage training wouldn't go amiss. Schools should be covering it as a module or similar for a semester. Rules of road, cycle craft and a bit of driving teaching would be of great benefit to society IMO. Certainly more relevant than religion or Irish at this stage.
Expand the theory test to include a few cycling / bicycle related questions, tack it onto the above school course and bobs your teapot for testing.

Kids used to do that

Remember that place they used to have in Marino ?


Also applies to pedestrians too.


The BIG difference is that a motorised vehicle can continue to travel under it's own power acting as a lethal weapon if the driver looses control

kenmc

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The BIG difference is that a motorised vehicle can continue to travel under it's own power acting as a lethal weapon if the driver looses control

Did you never do a ghostie as a kid?

el tel

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

Insurance firm under fire as it urges [UK] minister to make cyclists undertake compulsory training and testing

Campaign backed by Gary Lineker and - initially - BikeRadar attracts criticism from cyclists

An open letter from a motor insurance company to Secretary of State for Transport Justine Greening that called for all cyclists to be required to “undergo compulsory training and testing before they take to the road” has attracted strong criticism from cyclists on social media channels including Twitter.

Not content with advertising crisps Lineker now wants to discourage cycling, and says cyclists who object are "only the uncompromising extremist ones." He's an investor in the motor insurance company and presumably also has shares in manufacturers of defibrillators and obesity drugs.

What's the source of this?

Kintarō Hattori

el tel wrote: »

What's the source of this?

http://www.ingenie.com/share-the-road-UK

jimmycrackcorm

I remember having cycle training when I was in primary school. I think it's a good idea to instil the rules of the road.

strokeslover

I think a mandatory small training course definitely would be beneficial, as a lot more people are commuting to work now by bicycle due to the cycle to work scheme etc..

Seaneh

This is a bad idea, next step: Licencing for bike owner/user ship.
After that it's compulsory insurence.

this firm is only pushing their own agenda, they can see that the next step from this would be bike user insurance and they will make easy money.

If anything we need to be making biking cheaper not more expensive, and lets be honest, these measures will cost money, money the end user will have to stump up.

Cookie_Monster

Seaneh wrote: »

This is a bad idea, next step: Licencing for bike owner/user ship.
After that it's compulsory insurance.

this firm is only pushing their own agenda, they can see that the next step from this would be bike user insurance and they will make easy money.

If anything we need to be making biking cheaper not more expensive, and lets be honest, these measures will cost money, money the end user will have to stump up.

That's why I'd only like to see it in schools as part of the national curriculum, otherwise if it's NTA/DoT run it'll descend into the type of nonsense you point out above.

monkeypants

Someone must have some spare test centres with nothing to test in them...

ashleey

We used to do 'The Cycle Proficiency Test' when we I was a kid in England. You werent allowed to cycle to school without it. You just went round the playground around cones and listened to a policeman for an hour. You got to feel all grown up like you had done your driving test. We loved it. Then we rode our bikes to school without parents getting on our nerves. Main roads, no helmets, 5 miles, no mum or dad, freedom... horror!
I'm not saying it should be compulsory but why not teach kids good road sense at age 8? I think Thatcher stopped it with free milk on cost grounds

Diarmuid

I'm looking forward to the mandatory pedestrian training. Won't someone please think of the children !

Oryx

The only reason an insurance company would bother pushing something like this is to make money, either by having less payouts to crushed cyclists, or by opening the door to bicycle road insurance. Either way I don't like the direction it takes. A cyclist could end up partly responsible for getting run over because they didn't do this course and thats why Mr Magoo didn't see him. (A thing they are already doing to motorcyclists by bringing in mandatory hi viz jackets so blind drivers won't see that, either)

dub_skav

To all the people saying that it should be part of the primary school curriculum, yes indeed it should, as part of civics possibly, i.e. being a good citizen. I did the training in Marino many moons ago and it was great.

However, this is clearly not the intention of the proposal.
The proposal is to make it mandatory to have training and testing. So all adults would need to take this training, including anybody wanting to use a Dublin Bike.
It would mean that all cycling clubs would need to be suspended until they pass training, club cyclists would probably be exempt, but you never know.

Don't let your own common sense version of this blind you to the intention behind the proposal, as Seaneh said this is a vested interest proposal, not a for the good of the children proposal

Jawgap

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Kids used to do that

Remember that place they used to have in Marino ?


Also applies to pedestrians too.


The BIG difference is that a motorised vehicle can continue to travel under it's own power acting as a lethal weapon if the driver looses control

We went there too - it's now been put to much better use as a five-a-side pitch and running track.:)

EDIT:- and for what it's worth, if there's some spare time kicking around in the school curriculum it would be better spent on maths education - we already have one of the shortest school years in the OECD - let's not waste any more of it.

buffalo

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

http://www.ingenie.com/share-the-road-UK

I read that as http://www.lingerie.com/share-the-road-UK ...just seeing what I want to see I guess.

Qualitymark

I can't understand why training people to cycle safely should be objectionable. When I started cycling in the 1950s there were trailer-length safety films in the cinema and safety articles in newspapers.

It was expected for cyclists to signal properly for a left turn (left arm and hand stretched out to the left), a right turn (ditto but right arm rightwards) and a stop (road-side arm stretched out with palm down, moving arm up and down). It was normal for cyclists to stop at red lights with other traffic. It was expected that people would know the rules of the road and keep them. Nothing sensational there!

All these signals have more or less gone into abeyance now.

I don't have a huge objection to anyone cycling through a red light slowly when it's the safest thing to do (for instance on wide crossings, currently empty, where stopping will put you and motorists at risk when you start off more slowly than them). But I've seen some extraordinary cycling in the last couple of days - in one case, a van was parked beside a pedestrian light obscuring any pedestrians crossing. I came to it and saw the light turning red and stopped, thank goodness, and just as the *blind man with a guide dog* stepped out from behind the van, another cyclist whizzed past. He turned around with an expression of horror to look back at the guy he'd just almost hit...)

I don't have great time for insurance companies normally, but it's just possible that this company is simply trying to lessen the chance of accidents (which would, of course, save it money.)

Jawgap

No problem with training - it's the 'mandatory' bit that slightly irritates me, followed by suggestions that it's down to the state through the education system to provide it.

Parents should teach it. And for older people, let them pay for it.

rp

Qualitymark wrote: »

I don't have great time for insurance companies normally, but it's just possible that this company is simply trying to lessen the chance of accidents (which would, of course, save it money.)

If they really wanted to do that, they should campaign for adequate driver training and frequent re-qualification tests. That would make a much larger impact on accident figures / payouts.

Hungrycol

No, the agenda is not only long term insurance of bike riders but in the short term in event of an accident between a cyclist & a motorist. Insurance companies make money by taking premiums and trying not to pay claims. This leads me to believe that in the event of an accident the insurance company can apply a greater portion of blame (& lower payout) on the cyclist if they have not completed this cycle training/test.

hardCopy

Jawgap wrote: »

We went there too - it's now been put to much better use as a five-a-side pitch and running track.:)

That running track is now long gone I'm afraid.

It's now two pitches.

Qualitymark

Jawgap wrote: »

No problem with training - it's the 'mandatory' bit that slightly irritates me, followed by suggestions that it's down to the state through the education system to provide it.

Parents should teach it. And for older people, let them pay for it.

Ah, pay... this is a philosophic question. I'd see 'the state' as all of us co-operating, and I'd see teaching safe cycling as a good thing for us to co-operate on. As for the money thing, England seems to be all about money these days.

rp wrote: »

If they really wanted to do that, they should campaign for adequate driver training and frequent re-qualification tests. That would make a much larger impact on accident figures / payouts.

Couldn't agree with you more. So, so, so true. I wish there were 'advanced' driving classes easily obtainable; what a great birthday present they'd be.

Beasty

Qualitymark wrote: »

I

I don't have great time for insurance companies normally, but it's just possible that this company is simply trying to lessen the chance of accidents (which would, of course, save it money.)

But it doesn't save them money in the long term. Competitive forces means it brings down premiums. There's actually a counter argument that over time, across all forms of insurance, reducing risk actually reduces the numbers looking to take out insurance

Having said that, I would not pay too much attention to one individual with a possible vested interest making such statements

SerialComplaint

Dublin City Council currently have a tender out for bike safety training for primary schools;
http://www.etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=JUL360915&catID=22

Jawgap

Qualitymark wrote: »

Ah, pay... this is a philosophic question. I'd see 'the state' as all of us co-operating, and I'd see teaching safe cycling as a good thing for us to co-operate on. As for the money thing, England seems to be all about money these days.



Couldn't agree with you more. So, so, so true. I wish there were 'advanced' driving classes easily obtainable; what a great birthday present they'd be.

Just to disagree with you on an ecumencial matter, I'd say all of us co-operating together is 'the community' - the state is the bureaucracy, institutions and systems within which we live.

Anyway, I'm not denying the utility of cycle training only questioning who is best to provide it.

Second, it should be paid for - if you have to pay for it you'll pay more attention than you otherwise would.

To return to the old 'driving school' in Clontarf (now two 5-a-side pitches) we were there a few times and all I remember was that it was great laugh and a free half-day.

I learned infinitely more by doing my cycling merit badge in the scouts!

el tel

Perhaps this Insurance firm should consider mandatory training for dealing with cyclists for Its customers and perhaps reduced premiums for those that undertake such training.

Bunnyhopper

el tel wrote: »

What's the source of this?

I've added it to the first post now. I was so concerned about the Sherlocking rules that I forgot to include it.

Capt'n Midnight

Hungrycol wrote: »

No, the agenda is not only long term insurance of bike riders but in the short term in event of an accident between a cyclist & a motorist. Insurance companies make money by taking premiums and trying not to pay claims. This leads me to believe that in the event of an accident the insurance company can apply a greater portion of blame (& lower payout) on the cyclist if they have not completed this cycle training/test.

Incorrect

Insurance companies make money from investments. The longer they can hold onto premiums before they make payouts the better for them.


seeing as how in most collisions between bikers and motorists the biker wins the court case - without an insurance company in their corner - can you imagine how many more cases cyclists would win with an insurance company

manwithaplan

Do parents not have a role here? Schools have enough to be getting on with, quite apart from the difficulty and expense of training teachers and equipping schools to do this job. I heard recently that it's the job of the schools to stop my kids getting fat too. Pretty soon I can just put my feet up and forget about parenting altogether.

Qualitymark

manwithaplan wrote: »

Do parents not have a role here? Schools have enough to be getting on with, quite apart from the difficulty and expense of training teachers and equipping schools to do this job. I heard recently that it's the job of the schools to stop my kids getting fat too. Pretty soon I can just put my feet up and forget about parenting altogether.

Not all parents cycle; of those who do, not all know how to cycle safely.

I would include cycling in the normal curriculum - any kid I've brought on a 50-mile cycle has been blown away by the realisation that s/he controls the countyside and distance and can go from end to end of the country by just turning the pedals.

Yeah yeah yeah parents should bring kids up right, should teach them manners, cooking, mechanics, jobfinding, yada yada yada. Yeah, they should, of course, right, yeah.

manwithaplan

Qualitymark wrote: »

I would include cycling in the normal curriculum

How would you do this?

Qualitymark

I'd have cycling as a sport, first teach the kids on the school grounds or sports fields, and with theoretical information (Rules of the Road, correct cycling with signals, etc), teach bicycle maintenance - and also bring them out on route cyclists with a couple of teachers, starting with short cycles, and then longer ones until they're doing a full-day cycle one day every month with a nice drum-up in the middle for food and drink. Such a good skill for kids to have!

ericzeking

I've been of the opinion for some time now that a mandatory period of cycling on a busy road should be part of getting a driving licence....it would teach 'them' to have a little bit more courtesy and show more respect for our safety.

piston

Cycle training in school could be done quite easily I would have thought.

I remember having something like 4 classes of PE per week at secondary school. Couldn't one of those classes be given over to the PE teacher taking the kids out on the road on bikes?

PE teachers would need some training to teach correct road positioning, etc but my bet is most kids would enjoy it more than football or something. A ten mile ride would be sufficient and easily within the capability of a healthy teenager.

My bet is it will never happen like that because schools would be terrified of possible lawsuits if someone did get hurt.

Beasty

ericzeking wrote: »

I've been of the opinion for some time now that a mandatory period of cycling on a busy road should be part of getting a driving licence....it would teach 'them' to have a little bit more courtesy and show more respect for our safety.

Are you serious? - what about those who cannot cycle for example (for whatever reason)?.

The vast majority of drivers do not need to be "taught" this, and the chances of it making much difference to many of those that do are pretty low - they will often be the type that will ignore any motroing rules that don't suit them anyway

It's a complete non-starter

Qualitymark

Beasty wrote: »

Are you serious? - what about those who cannot cycle for example (for whatever reason)?.

The vast majority of drivers do not need to be "taught" this, and the chances of it making much difference to many of those that do are pretty low - they will often be the type that will ignore any motroing rules that don't suit them anyway

It's a complete non-starter

Very few can't cycle, and those in that tiny minority could be accommodated in the same way as those who can't play sports.

galwaycyclist

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Incorrect
Insurance companies make money from investments. The longer they can hold onto premiums before they make payouts the better for them.

Indeed. I recall postulating at one time that it was in the insurance companies' interest to have a high level of crashes and claims going through the system. This is because it would inflate the pot of money they were sitting on at any given moment in time. This pot could then be made available for eye watering interest on the short-term money market.

At the time it was my view that it raised a huge question mark regarding the large influence that motor insurance interests were being given in the old National Safety Council.

This also feeds into concerns regarding the curious Irish/UK emphasis on crash-mitigation (seatbelts, helmets etc) rather than crash-prevention (enforcement, speed limits etc)

seamus

The only reason an insurance companywant this is so that they can contest claims by cyclists against their policyholders on the basis that the cyclist wasn't holding a licence.

The statistics don't bear out that mandatory training and testing of cyclists would have an effect on injury rates.

galwaycyclist

ericzeking wrote: »

I've been of the opinion for some time now that a mandatory period of cycling on a busy road should be part of getting a driving licence....it would teach 'them' to have a little bit more courtesy and show more respect for our safety.

Yes it is Cyclist.ie's (the National Cycling Lobby Group) position that there should be compulsory on-road cycle training for learner drivers.

From our policy document

Ensure that driver training schools increase awareness of the needs of cyclists, and include cyclingspecific problems in tests. Introduce a Cyclist & Pedestrian Safety module into learner-driver courses. Following the introduction and maturation of school and adult cycling training courses nationwide, make the issuance of a provisional driving licence dependent on the possession of a Certificate of Road Cycling Competence, save in situations of physical incapacity. Commercial vehicle training courses should have a specific module on vulnerable road users, including cyclists.

In the Netherlands or Denmark it goes without question that learner drivers already did cycle training in school and they must still do a specific module on vulnerable road users.

It would be very easy to set up since there is already an element of compulsory training being introduced for learner drivers.

manwithaplan

Where do the school get the bikes and equipment from? Are we saying that all parents must get their kids to rock up to school on bikes on particular days? You would need lot of supervision also and training for teachers. There might be some possibilities in including an optional transition year module on cycling but making it mandatory for schools to put kids on bikes is not a runner in any shape or form.

Edit - just to clarify that this wasn't in response to the previous post.

Peanut2011

ericzeking wrote: »

I've been of the opinion for some time now that a mandatory period of cycling on a busy road should be part of getting a driving licence....it would teach 'them' to have a little bit more courtesy and show more respect for our safety.

You must be taking a pi$$! Since the bike scheme came in operation in town it's got a hell of a lot more dangerous. 60% of the cyclists do not know rules of the road or hoe to cycle safely.

Why is it a pure responsibility of the motor drivers to ensure cyclist safety when a lot of cyclists do nothing to help their own safety?

oflahero

Peanut2011 wrote: »

60%

LOL

galwaycyclist

Peanut2011 wrote: »

You must be taking a pi$$! Since the bike scheme came in operation in town it's got a hell of a lot more dangerous. 60% of the cyclists do not know rules of the road or hoe to cycle safely.

Why is it a pure responsibility of the motor drivers to ensure cyclist safety when a lot of cyclists do nothing to help their own safety?

We have generations of motorists who were never taught anything about sharing the roads with cyclists or their responsibilities.

For decades the relevant chapter in the "Rules of the Road" was called "driving the car" (a misleading title if ever there was one). In this chapter there were no images of cyclists or motorcyclists in any of the illustrations.

It is the responsibility of the state to ensure that everybody understands how everybody else is expected to operate on the roads.

Beasty

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Yes it is Cyclist.ie's (the National Cycling Lobby Group) position that there should be compulsory on-road cycle training for learner drivers.

And who is it that appointed you to lobby on my behalf? My personal view is if that's the type of thing you ar lobbying for you are likely to lose credibilty in the eyes of the wider public

buffalo

Peanut2011 wrote: »

You must be taking a pi$$! Since the bike scheme came in operation in town it's got a hell of a lot more dangerous.

It's true, since the bike scheme came in, there has been a marked increase in deaths and injuries in Dublin city centre (a 60% increase?)... or what exactly do you mean by dangerous? If we discount the eejits who cycle on the footpath, who is in danger from a wobbly cyclist?

galwaycyclist

Beasty wrote: »

And who is it that appointed you to lobby on my behalf? My personal view is if that's the type of thing you ar lobbying for you are likely to lose credibilty in the eyes of the wider public

As I understand it Beasty the sports cyclists already have their own group. I would have assumed you were already a member. If you're not already a member you could think about joining them. Alternatively you could join one of the constituent groups of Cyclist.ie and try lobbying for changes to our agreed policy - however I suspect you would be in a minority of one.

Lastly if you don't like those options you could always set up your own lobby group - thats what democracy is all about.

Beasty

My objection is to you calling yourselves "the National Cycling lobby". That gives people the misleading impression that you represent cyclists generally in this country. You certainly don't represent me, and based on some of your posts in this forum there are probably a number of areas where I would not be in agreement with your policies

I would prefer it if you simply (and indeed much more accurately) described yourselves as "an Irish Cycling Lobby"

Qualitymark

Beasty wrote: »

My objection is to you calling yourselves "the National Cycling lobby". That gives people the misleading impression that you represent cyclists generally in this country. You certainly don't represent me, and based on some of your posts in this forum there are probably a number of areas where I would not be in agreement with your policies

I would prefer it if you simply (and indeed much more accurately) described yourselves as "an Irish Cycling Lobby"

By the same token, I'd like to dissociate myself from any body in the last 10 years calling itself "The Government of Ireland".

piston

Peanut2011 wrote: »

You must be taking a pi$$! Since the bike scheme came in operation in town it's got a hell of a lot more dangerous. 60% of the cyclists do not know rules of the road or hoe to cycle safely.

Why is it a pure responsibility of the motor drivers to ensure cyclist safety when a lot of cyclists do nothing to help their own safety?

You could just as easily say 60% of drivers don't know the rules or how to drive safely.