DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Regarding the first point above, I'll never agree to that. Why should cyclists be afforded such leeway? But I favour a left turn on red being permitted for everyone where the road is clear (allowing for exceptions at specific junctions).
What reason would you have for never agreeing to it? If red lights meant 'give way for cyclists', it would help a lot of people and (provided people obey the 'give way' law properly) harm no one. Cyclists could make their journeys faster. Car drivers would probably also see their journey times slightly improved, partly because a few seconds would be shaved off waiting behind cyclists when lights turn green, but also because the more favourable environment for cyclists would be likely to induce some motorists to swap to cycling, thereby reducing congestion for the remaining motorists. And it would massively help safety for vulnerable cyclists
Remember, cycles are much smaller and more manoeuvrable than cars. At most junctions cycles can edge forward to check if a junction is clear without getting in the way of other road users, in a way that cars can't do. Having said that, I'm somewhat sympathetic to having red mean 'give way' for all vehicles at those junctions where visibility is sufficiently good.
And regarding the second, can you clarify, please. Do you mean that before one qualifies for a licence to drive a motor vehicle one must pass a cycling proficiency test?
Something like that, yes. The advantage is twofold. It means that drivers will generally be much more aware of the ways in which they pose danger to cyclists, and also of how cyclists move. (As just one example they'd better understand why cyclists often have to move out to avoid potholes in a way that cars don't.) All that awareness should lead drivers to drive more safely (and in some cases feel less hostile to cyclists). Secondly, it's likely to mean more drivers realize they actually can cycle instead of drive for some of their journeys - which obviously would give massive benefits in terms of less congestion/noise/pollution/etc. for *everyone*.
Set against that you are making people learn something they might not want to learn. I accept that is a significant problem - I have no wish in principle to restrict people in that way, and I know some people will resent it. But I think in this case the benefits so massively outweigh the disadvantages that it is worth considering.
I would also suggest that if you made the changes I'm suggesting, you'd be in a much better position to then require some kind of cycling proficiency/safety test for cyclists too - something that is in principle desirable, but would be difficult at the moment because the law and road environment is currently so unfavourable to cyclists anyway that, without other offsetting changes to benefit cyclists, introducing such a test could easily look like adding yet another burden to a group that is already disadvantaged.
Last edited: