Safe Speed Forums

Ok, this might be a rather sweeping (and you might think pointless) question, but almost every biker I know agrees with the statement that before being allowed behind the wheel of a car, a new driver should be required to spend some time on a bike.

I've just been reading the article and thread on A-pillar blind spots and it promped me to ask the question.

My personal reasoning for this belief is the simple fact that I learned infinitely more about safe and defensive road use while training for my big bike test than I ever learned while taking driving lessons. The obvious reasoning for this from the instructors' point of view being that it actually MATTERS when you're on a bike. (Incidentally most of what my bike instructor taught me was not on the syllabus.)

This DOES highlight a major failing in the driver training syllabus in that new drivers should be adequately trained before they are issued with a licence, but this clearly doesn't happen - maybe its time for a rethink. Personally I'm quite for the idea of a second test 6 months or so after the licence is issued to allow the new driver to demonstrate new skills and experience gained, and to show that they are capable of developing as a driver.

If learner drivers were obliged to spend some time on a bike, not only would it highlight the specific safety issues relevant to bikers and why we sometimes make *sudden* or *irrational* manoeuvres (for example to avoid a wet drain cover whilst cornering), but I recon it would also give a much better appreciation of general road safety and the importance of proper observation.

Any thoughts?

(By the way I apologise if this has been discussed previously!)

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

I would certainly like car drivers, particularly young women in little Peugots (sweeping generalisation alert!), to have a greater appreciation of what a motorcycle can and cannot do.

Well, I'm a young woman who drives a car with a peugot engine...does that count?

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

It was a sweeping generalisation

It would be really nice if car drivers could be given some appreciation of motorcycles and their foibles.
But, I suppose, the same could be said of their appreciation of HGVs, busses etc etc. I'd just like all car drivers, male/female/Peugot driving or otherwise, to engage their brains on a more regular basis. That would be a start IMHO.

Yeah, I agree. As was stated in the '40mhp HGV limit' thread, one of the biggest problems HGV drivers face is a lack of understanding of their specific needs by thr general driving population, and I guess the same goes for bikers.

The basic problem is that car drivers generaly don't think when they get behind the wheel. Advantage I have is that I ride a bike (obviously!) and I live with a truck driver, and I've been out on the road with him a few times. (Oh yeah, that and I'm saving up for my HGV test....)

I think there's so much more that the DfT could do to improve the standards of the general driver, but the problem then becomes the complaints from those who don't meet the standards of 'the driving test is too hard' - appparently everyone has the right to drive...

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

A friend of mine actually suggested this to another non-biker in our group just the other day. The other chap thought this was the most preposterous idea he'd ever heard ( whilst we're generalising , he drives a BMW with no indicators !).

He asked for my point of view on the subject , and whilst being a biker myself, I could offer no firm argument other than my own experience in heightening my awareness of other road users .

I think its a impossible argument because until someone actually sits on a bike and experiences the road from that perspective they will never appreciate the difference it makes .

Still I do agree its always worth trying to get the point across , even if it is just to make them more aware of us.

Hell yes!

I have ridden since the age of 7, and if nothing else, I am convinced that it made me a far better (and definately more confident) road user than the newbie who has just got behind the wheel for the first time.

Both my kids (aged 7 & 9) compete at competition level in schoolboy motocross where speeds of 50mph + are commonplace and they deal with this as easily as breathing. I started teaching them how to drive cars around a year ago, and they are already physically capable of driving & manouvering a Transit sized van around obstacles (which includes people) without any problems at all (as the eldest proved to us a couple of weeks ago when he was too lazy to walk to the burger van at the race meeting, the little bastard).

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

I am not sure if the original question refers to motorcycles or to what I would call bikes (i.e. a pedal cycle).

Cars are mechancal devices and require some sort of mechanical appreciation to understand what they - and motorcycles - are capable of. Someone with no "feel" for this will be at a disadvantage on the road. I believe that some mechanical knowledge is now required in the driving test syllabus.

Perhaps a short engineering course would be useful (tongue in cheek icon)

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

MalcolmW I'm not entirely sure I see your point... Yes I'm talking about motorbikes (there wasn't enough space in the title bar to put that so I put bikes ).

Being aware of the mechanical capabilities of a vehicle, and how to change a wheel or check the oil doesn't make you look where you are going or understand why a vehicle is in a certain road possition.

As it happens I'm actually a degree qualified mechanical engineer, and I design earth drilling attachments for lorries amongst other things. That doesn't meen that I can drive a lorry or operate the crane that's mounted on it....

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

I can see where the bikers are coming from, but from my personal perspective it would doesn't make much more sense than saying that I should also learn how to drive an HGV before a car. The same argument applies - that drivers need to be aware of how different vehicles behave and what it's like for people using them.

I've never had any bike training, never been on one apart from a few pillion rides, and I have no plans to ever get one. If car drivers had to do some bike time the 17 year old Gatsobait would have probably looked at it as a pain in the bum that had to be put up with if I wanted to get into a car, and that's not the point of it is it? (You'll be glad to know that 20 years on I have a better attitude. ) Besides, there are drivers who are physically incapable of riding a bike but can manage a car. Where would it leave them? Are they not equally likely to cause a SMIDSY? I think the effort would be better spent on something that will make all drivers better at spotting and avoiding bikes, and maybe include other vehicles as well. Maybe the hazard perception part of the test will have improved things, but I think it needs to have expert nikers involved in the design if thery're not already. Beyond that I think there has to be a lot more attention on teaching observations and anticipation than I can remember in the L test.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Alas you can't teach either I'm afraid.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

It's certainly difficult. But what you can do is get examiners to raise the bar for what's an acceptable standard of observation and anticipation, and fail everyone who doesn't make the grade.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Sixy,

Yes, I apologise. If I had read your first post properly the motorcycle reference would have been obvious.

As an engineer you will be familiar with centre of gravity, centrifugal force, polar moment of inertia and a myriad other things which contribute to your understanding of how the world around you works. This should contribute to your understanding of the mechanics of driving and thus to your ability to be safe.

I think that the most likely result of a period of compulsory motorcycle riding before car driving would be legal cases after accidents alleging that the government was making people perform one of the most dangerous activities in modern life in order to do something safer later. Are newly qualified motorcycle riders proportionately more likely to be involved in accidents like new car drivers are?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Indeed - I can see the attractions of the argument as a debating point, but in practice it seems counter-productive to require people to learn a dangerous activity that most of them will have no long-term need for.

Perhaps more practical (although still just a debating point) to require everyone to pass a cycling proficiency test before gaining any kind of driving licence, as advocated here - which also advocates compulsory licences for cyclists.

To be honest, I'm not one of those who sees harder driving tests as a road safety panacea, as in general accidents result from failures of attitude rather than deficiencies of skill.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I can see the argument against, but firstly MalcolmW I dont actually know the statistics on the number of accidents for newly qualified drivers/riders, but what i DO know is that the introduction of CBT reduced the accident rate among learner and newly qualified riders by something like 60% (can anyone confirm that one?)

I still fail to see how understanding the principles of motion and dynamics make you a safe driver. I see how it helps me to understand how a vehicle will react to a given input, but at the end of the day, generally learning how to OPERATE a vehicle isn't the problem. The only way to gain an understanding of road hazards is by seing them and (hopefully) reacting correctly in order to avoid them. Basically the argument you're using there would suggest that all hairdressers, solicitors, bank clerks, or anyone who doesn't have a scientific brain cannot possibly be a good driver.

At the end of the day, us bikers are the one of the most vulnerable groups of vehicles on the road. As I said in my original post, the motivation for starting this thread was the article on a-pillar blind spots and the good old excuse; SMIDSY. We are small and easily missed, and lets face it, who's going to come off worse? Driving a car is a dangerous activity too might I point out - not necessarily to the occupents either.

The way I see it, if we were more selective about those we allow to gain driving licences (by whatever means) then surely by default we would increase road safety - we would a) decrease the number of cars on the road and b) hopefully increase the general standard of drivers.

Incidentally, its interesting to see the split in opinion between the bikers and the non bikers

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Where's Horse when you need him?

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Doesn't necessarily follow - I tend to think a society with 32 million adult drivers and 14 adult non-drivers is likely to overall have safer roads than one with 14 million adult drivers and 32 million non-drivers. Fewer cars and more pedestrians is likely to lead to less safe roads.

Also - whatever the pious words - in practice those who succeeded in passing the test would be those who could afford the training.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Think I once said riding a bicycle and driving a car both enhance my riding and cycling. I don't ride a motorbike - neve appealed to me really but my wife and her family all do and all learned to ride before they learned to drive.

But safety is attitude as much as skill and we need better overall road sense training just as much as we need to braoden to L-test to include motorway drives and ongoing assessments as driving and road use should be perceived as continousou learning activities and any test not as the end in itself. Cyclist's success in his advanced test is the start of a new learning and practice phase in his driving career and not an end in the exam pass.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

There are various ways in which the training and testing process could be improved - but the objective must be to have the same number of drivers better trained, rather than just to set the bar higher and get people off the road.

Currently, anyone who is medically fit and in the normal range of intelligence can learn to drive with the right motivation. If we change that, we move into a different kind of society where, far from opening up a new era of liberation, drivers' rights are likely to come under ever-increasing scrutiny.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Funny you should say that, because I was chatting to a motorcycle examiner last week about getting the old lady through her test and he was of the opinion that the CBT wasn't worth a w*nk. Having seen the way that the "pizza boys" perform on the step thru's, I would have to agree with him. FWIW, my 7 year old could pass the CBT with flying colours, but that wouldn't make him any safer on a public highway.


The only reason we are small & easily missed is because (9 times out of 10) the car driver is in his/her own little world and he isn't even thinking about motorcycles, let alone making anywhere near the same conscious effort to look out for them that he/she would for a car. The amount of times I have come up behind car drivers where it is obvious they are oblivious to my presence is incredible although a Z9 wearing a Harris does seem to be a rather rude awakening for them though (watching them physically jump when they hear me can be quite amusing sometimes )


A selection process eh....
And prey tell, how exactly do we decide who is fit enough to hold a license & who isn't?


Wrong.
Even the biggest twat in the world can perform the way you want him/her to for an hour in order to pass a test.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?