These could be improved by requiring retesting every decade or so. Highway Code changes happen but people seem unaware of them. There are also those who apply standards learned in other cultures that aren’t appropriate here.Failing a test would, of course, reduce the number of bad drivers on the roads, which is what you want.Cyclists should have to complete a mandatory proficiency test, including a written one about signs, lines and signals. Plenty of cyclists don’t drive and seem unaware of the environment around them.Using bike lanes should be compulsory if they are installed. The claptrap that they are just for the less experienced is just that, claptrap. The idea, we are told, is to keep cyclists away from those nasty killing machines on four wheels.Your contention about bikes being less dangerous than motor vehicles is an odd one. While the numbers might be lower in terms of injury and death, they still have the potential to harm if ridden carelessly. That’s the point.It also follows that if more and more bicycles are in use then the number of accidents will increase. Since the mayor has his Vision Zero policy in place it would be obvious to most normal people that bikes have a part in those accident statistics. It’s vision Zero, not nearly Zero and bikes don’t count.I don’t think you should start on about pollution and climate change. The biggest increase in traffic has been delivery vans and cabs in the last decade. Of course, once the ICE is banished that pollution becomes a thing of the past. I won’t mention those people who dislike cars but still feel it’s fine to jet off abroad at any opportunity. Why, some even take their bikes on the plane to tackle a mountain or two.What you fail to comprehend is that simply saying more bikes is the answer to everything really isn’t the answer to everything. Transport planning is far more nuanced than the blunt instruments currently employed by TfL and its LCC stooges. But then you really don’t want to know that, do you?
Simon Hayes ● 1420d