Advocacy & Safety - Licensing for Cyclists

Today, while on my usual ride, I passed another cyclist who was laboring slowly up a hill. He caught up to me when I stopped for the next red light, and demanded, "Are you playing games, or just an *******?"

I was bewildered, and asked him "What?! What are you talking about?"

He snapped, "F*** you!" and rode off.

Granted, he may have been paranoid; but what bothered me the most was having no idea what might have set him off.

Finally I realized that he may have: (1) not known that cyclists are required to obey traffic laws (including stopping at red lights), (2) assumed that I only stopped because I felt like it, and then (3) assumed that anyone who passes him and then stops ahead of him must be messing with him.

I started thinking about how to teach all cyclists what the rules of the road really are. A public information campaign probably wouldn't reach everyone, and driver's ed sure won't teach you how to ride a bike. Then I remembered hearing that motorcycle riders need a "motorcycle endorsement" on their driver's license in order to show that they've taken the motorcycle version of driver's ed. Maybe a "bicycle endorsement," and mandatory education for cyclists, would help all of us share the road safely.

Has there been any discussion of this in the past?

What do you think the pros and cons would be?

A lot of the allure of cycling has to do with no liscence bullcrap, I think.

I started thinking about how to teach all cyclists what the rules of the road really are. A public information campaign probably wouldn't reach everyone, and driver's ed sure won't teach you how to ride a bike. Then I remembered hearing that motorcycle riders need a "motorcycle endorsement" on their driver's license in order to show that they've taken the motorcycle version of driver's ed. Maybe a "bicycle endorsement," and mandatory education for cyclists, would help all of us share the road safely.

Has there been any discussion of this in the past?

What do you think the pros and cons would be?

I agree with you bicyclist are the only ones that use the roads that are not required to carry a license or take a written or riding test. This could be accomplished with an endorsement on your drivers license or ID card, which most of us already carry. This would be for making sure the rider had knowledge their responsibilities on the road as well as the ability to safely operate a bike in traffic. At the same time the right of cyclists need to be taught to all other users of the road.

Should we require pedestrian licenses as well?

If either a pedestrian or a cyclist does something illegal they can already be cited for violating the law.

Licensing bikes will only lead to more fat people.

I don't think it had anything to do with rules of the road. I recently moved from the Seattle area to the Boston area. My experience is that if you want to avoid having profanities spewed at you for no reason, you should move somewhere away from Boston.

But to answer your question, I don't think that bicycle endorsements are practical. There's a precident that children are allowed to ride bicycles (otherwise, how would they get around? And how would bicycling start if not with kids?). And I, for one, would be disappointed telling my four-year-old that he couldn't ride his bike on our cul-du-sac without taking a written test :)

But communication of the rules does need to happen, and it should be communicated soon after kids start learning to ride. Perhaps some sort of communication in early schooling that could be re-enforced every once in a while during school would work. Then, later, re-enforced during driver's ed. Are there any videos aimed at young kids who are starting to ride on roads with other traffic?

Should we require pedestrian licenses as well?

Why? They are not allowed in the street. I didn't say a license to ride on the sidewalk.

If either a pedestrian or a cyclist does something illegal they can already be cited for violating the law.

Whats this got to do with what we are talking about? It is not a question of doing things illegal a drivers license is not only for ID purposes but it is also proof that you have passed a skills and knowledge test.

Licensing bikes will only lead to more fat people.

No overeating and lack of exercise does that.

I don't think it had anything to do with rules of the road. I recently moved from the Seattle area to the Boston area. My experience is that if you want to avoid having profanities spewed at you for no reason, you should move somewhere away from Boston.

But to answer your question, I don't think that bicycle endorsements are practical. There's a precident that children are allowed to ride bicycles (otherwise, how would they get around? And how would bicycling start if not with kids?). And I, for one, would be disappointed telling my four-year-old that he couldn't ride his bike on our cul-du-sac without taking a written test :)

But communication of the rules does need to happen, and it should be communicated soon after kids start learning to ride. Perhaps some sort of communication in early schooling that could be re-enforced every once in a while during school would work. Then, later, re-enforced during driver's ed. Are there any videos aimed at young kids who are starting to ride on roads with other traffic?

There would have to be something figured out for kids. But here is also something that has to change, that bicycle's are toys. Just today an 8 year old boy was hit in White Center riding his bike down 1st Ave S thats a major street no kid that age should be riding on that street.

I don't know about any videos but there are groups out there that teach children to ride. Cascade Bike club offers things like that here.

I don't think licencing will solve anything this "idea" get floated by those who have been brain washed be the motorist propaganda, why not require plates for every bike you own so motorist can ID you to the cops because they think you are breaking the law by not riding in the ditch. The way to get better understanding is to teach students in drivers ed to respect bicycles on the road and inform them of the rules for bikes as time goes on these people will become parents and hopefully teach their children proper bicycle DRIVING. I think most of the problem stems form bikes being viewed as toys and parent not teaching their kids.

Why do we need another government program to licence and track cyclists? This would also require more uniformity in the laws across the nation. Maybe not a bad thing in the end but the means still suck.

Done with Rant.

If liscensing allowed me (and required insurance carriers to provide it) to buy liability and medical insurance for me and my bike similar to car insurance for a couple hunnert a year perhaps, I'd be for it....

I started thinking about how to teach all cyclists what the rules of the road really are. A public information campaign probably wouldn't reach everyone, and driver's ed sure won't teach you how to ride a bike. Then I remembered hearing that motorcycle riders need a "motorcycle endorsement" on their driver's license in order to show that they've taken the motorcycle version of driver's ed. Maybe a "bicycle endorsement," and mandatory education for cyclists, would help all of us share the road safely.

Has there been any discussion of this in the past?

What do you think the pros and cons would be?

Most cyclists on the road over the age of 16 are licensed drivers and already should have a good understanding of traffic laws. They guy that passed you probably knows that running a red light on a bicycle is against the law... he was just pissed that you blew by him going up a hill. Cycling licenses aren't going to change the fact that some people are jerks.

If we do as you suggest, cycling will eventually join the long list of other life activities that are no longer our right to do as free citizens, but a "priviledge" granted by the state. It could lead to license plates for enforcement and mandatory liability insurance requirements down the road.

I think a better way to achieve your goal is to provide voluntary programs... in fact, I seem to recall the grade schools around here doing "cycle town" where the police set up a mini town on the playground and teach the kids traffic laws... maybe a more advanced version of that as kids got older?

The way to get better understanding is to teach students in drivers ed to respect bicycles on the road and inform them of the rules for bikes as time goes on these people will become parents and hopefully teach their children proper bicycle DRIVING. I think most of the problem stems form bikes being viewed as toys and parent not teaching their kids.

Are we in agreement that education is the problem. I often have more bike then car incidents.

I don't think it had anything to do with rules of the road. I recently moved from the Seattle area to the Boston area. My experience is that if you want to avoid having profanities spewed at you for no reason, you should move somewhere away from Boston.

But to answer your question, I don't think that bicycle endorsements are practical. There's a precident that children are allowed to ride bicycles (otherwise, how would they get around? And how would bicycling start if not with kids?). And I, for one, would be disappointed telling my four-year-old that he couldn't ride his bike on our cul-du-sac without taking a written test :)

But communication of the rules does need to happen, and it should be communicated soon after kids start learning to ride. Perhaps some sort of communication in early schooling that could be re-enforced every once in a while during school would work. Then, later, re-enforced during driver's ed. Are there any videos aimed at young kids who are starting to ride on roads with other traffic?


Yo Velo..what the Eff are you effin talkin about?...Why you effin gotta go say an effed-up thing like that about my effin city? thats pretty effed-up...-eff

Just a thought..I recently met a cyclist..Has a problem coming down Mt.Tamplais (Sp ?) Marin County, Calif...Well,the speed limit for cyclists is very low, so he said...So he gets around it by not having a speedometer..
No licenses, speedometers not required..Once they start making us have a license, it might effect regulations such as having additional equiptment such as speedometers..
Not to say, I disagree with obeying speed laws..Just in your enthusism to have us obey the law.. they might be additional consquences..
By the way..this person, finally got arrested..In case we wondered.. When you get arrested on a bicycle..Well, in this guy's case..They put the bike in the trunk and Did not confiscate it.

Constitutional issue in this country.
Free movement dosn't always mean motorized transport but you'd have court battles out the ears for years on end if you tried to 'license' bikes. And other towns and states would jump on the boat and 'license' other non motorized transportation.
Pedestrians are different. 'license' bikes and what happens to towns with no sidewalks? Do you need a license to use the roadway? If so then you'd need gov't approval to leave your house and neighborhood... thus the constitutional issue.

Why? They are not allowed in the street. I didn't say a license to ride on the sidewalk.
Yes they are, especially in places don't have sidewalks. And unless you city has a skywalk system, pedestrians have to use the street at every intersection.

Perhaps some sort of communication in early schooling that could be re-enforced every once in a while during school would work.

Yeah, one MORE thing for the schools to do that the parents aren't doing. Let's see, we will fit this in between the required state and federal mandated testing for math, reading, science and writing that most kids in most schools aren't passing and for which many schools have already given up subjects like music, PE, art and other valuable "electives." But, we will add "bicycle education." Makes sense to me.


Granted, he may have been paranoid; but what bothered me the most was having no idea what might have set him off.

Hey, a jerk is a jerk is a jerk. Let it go.

Yes they are, especially in places don't have sidewalks. And unless you city has a skywalk system, pedestrians have to use the street at every intersection.

boy you guys have way too much time on your hands. The point is they are not USUALLY allowed in the street they can not for instance walk down the middle of the lane. They cannot make a left turn in the middle of the street and they do not have the 'Same rights snd respondibilities" as any other vehicle on the street. Please try and note the difference.

I do respect opinions but keep the arguments real huh. Splitting hairs doesn't get things accomplished.

Are we in agreement that education is the problem. I often have more bike then car incidents.
No, WE are not in agreement.

Especially not in agreement with a vague proposal of an undefined solution (i.e. more "education") to an undefined vague "problem" (not enough "education"). The only specific problem identified is your frequent encounters with undefined "incidents."

Even less in agreement with any licensing scheme requiring/promoting an undefined "education" program for cyclists (or any proprietary "education" program) with ZERO credible evidence of producing significant postive results for past cycling "students"; "education" programs with even less chance of producing significant postive results for coerced cycling students.

NO reason is this:

Cars require licenses because they are HEAVY MACHINERY, like a forklift.

Bikes are machinery, but light machinery, like a jack. Light = no license needed.

What is needed however is bicycle ed in schools....explain fully about how to use a bike properly and safely.

Given this will raise all kinda of opposing thoughts, since some don't adhere to local laws regarding bikes (only time I will ever ride the sidewalk is in event of a malfunctioning light). And it is this lack of consistent thought amongst us that makes it near impossible for any kind of proper traffic training. Someone will always go up and "Oh! I blast 35mph on a sidewalk every day" (some guy here actually does this, and I usually see him nearly get hit about 20 odd times every time I see him as well). Personally I think he needs the class too.

Are we in agreement that education is the problem. I often have more bike then car incidents.

Yes, I see it as one more thing American parents have seen as "not my problem to teach my child" the schools need to do it". I do also agree with another poster who did not want to see it become the school's responsibility. It is up to parent and the cycling comunity as a whole to do the education.


If people were exposed to cycling law during motor vehicle drivers education a respect of other user on the road may begin to develop but I only see long term solutions solving this there are no quick fixed that won't end up a government nightmare for cyclists.

catatonic has the best point--bad cyclists are a threat to themselves; bad motorists are a hazard to others. Add to that the problem of what to do about kids (I was riding to school when I was eight), licensing cyclists is neither practical nor good policy.

Just a debate point. If cyclists being licensed guranteed us access to the road or a part of the road, I would be more open minded. Was there not a story here at BF that some cyclist hit an older woman when she almost doored him and she was killed.? Couple months back..

Wait, it seems like the person got poed becasue you passed him. It would be odd that someone would get pissed becasue you stopped at a light. Or I cant read. Which is highly possible :D

Yo Velo..what the Eff are you effin talkin about?...Why you effin gotta go say an effed-up thing like that about my effin city? thats pretty effed-up...-eff


:)

No, WE are not in agreement.

Especially not in agreement with a vague proposal of an undefined solution (i.e. more "education") to an undefined vague "problem" (not enough "education"). The only specific problem identified is your frequent encounters with undefined "incidents."

Even less in agreement with any licensing scheme requiring/promoting an undefined "education" program for cyclists (or any proprietary "education" program) with ZERO credible evidence of producing significant positive results for past cycling "students"; "education" programs with even less chance of producing significant positive results for coerced cycling students.

I painted broad strokes for general ideas. Cycling is often location based, adherence to laws are not uniformly enforced. I think everybody needs to know the rules for riding a bike: both for safety and legitimacy. There are many issues initially met with incredible opposition that resulted in universal acceptance: Drunk driving, seat belts, school zone speed, drivers licensing.
I would assume from your zealous quotations you find the entire subject repulsive and will continue in your enlightened "When they pry my bike from my cold dead hands" army of one. Or, you could offer ideas, examples and proposals that promote cycling for the entire community.

I had bicycle ed during sixth grade or so... everyone here was given it.
Mandatory licensing is IMO an exceptionally bad idea however. I believe many people make a mental connection between bikes and freedom, take that away and I'm afraid much of bike culture and occasional riders will be gone. It would feel like having to license skateboards or rollerblades! Those are also vehicles (well not legally perhaps, but I hope you get the point...)

Motorists (well most of 'em) have a driver's license and that does not inhibit use of profanity or aggressive driving. You'll find one in every group/situation.
A nice retort: "Have a nice day!"

Motorists (well most of 'em) have a driver's license and that does not inhibit use of profanity or aggressive driving. You'll find one in every group/situation.
A nice retort: "Have a nice day!"

Motorists (well most of 'em) have a driver's license and that does not inhibit use of profanity or aggressive driving. You'll find one in every group/situation.
A nice retort: "Have a nice day!"

Just a debate point. If cyclists being licensed guranteed us access to the road or a part of the road, I would be more open minded. Was there not a story here at BF that some cyclist hit an older woman when she almost doored him and she was killed.? Couple months back..


But we already have legal rights to a portion of the road...so licensing is not the point...plus how would they verify a licensed bicycle? a plate? how would this be mounted so that it would not increase chances of severe injury in event of a crash?

There's a lot of variables that go well beyond merely having a peice of plastic in your wallet.

I still say there needs to be better public awareness through some kind of education program. Especially those who are nailed by police being hostile to bikes should take it...basically make it a course on bicycle specific points of the vehicle code. This would at least get it across to them that the roads are for more than cars.


mini-rant time....

as to another post about classes being a bad thing....it's only a bad thing if nobody listens to them...uniform behavior when operating machinery (light, heavy, or otherwise) is always a good policy. Would you operate a standard-chuck drill without using the chuck key to ensure the bit is secure? I didn't think so. On the other side, not operating a bike in the legal manner just gives drivers one more peice of legit ammunition to remove our road rights from us entirely, or to go to such unenforcable, and annoying efforts as licensing.

Sure it works, but the real answer is if there is no alternate way, to talk to the city council to see if there is any way to remedy the situation. I have recently found a very nice way to avoid a road I normally hate with a passion (4th st N), and am now using it to get me where I want to go. It does involve parking lot riding, but that's not a problem, as it gets me out of that 55mph pain in the rump. Sadly I still have to ride it on the way to work, due to the much higher traffic congestion making it impossible to cross that road as opposed to the lower congestion on the way home.

Bostonrider, where did this happen, and could you give a general description of this cyclist? Why I ask: I had a similiar experience heading up the Comm. Ave hills near Boston College last year. ("Heartbreak Hill", to Boston Marathon fans) There is a lighted intersection at the top of the hill. I stopped for it, and this cyclist in colorful, European teamwear buzzed by me and ran the light, making some choice comments as he did so.
Guess he didn't like my passing him on my fixie. What is there, a tribe of these characters somewhere?


The idea of licensing bicyclists is not new. It was last knocked around the MA state legislature during the bike boom of the 1970's, as record numbers of adults were taking up cycling as a means to beat gas lines and protect the ecology. (A far cry from today, sorry to say.) This caught the interest of some state lawmakers, who were looking for a new source of revenue. Luckily, The idea went nowhere. It still comes up in legislative circles once in awhile though. Mass state law does allow for local governments to require bicyclists to register their bikes. (Ch. 85, sec 11A) Boston requires working messengers to register and carry insurance, but this is the only instance I know of, where such a thing is required.

I'm against mandatory licensing / registration, as I don't believe it would solve anything.

I painted broad strokes for general ideas...Or, you could offer ideas, examples and proposals that promote cycling for the entire community.
OK. I offer the proposal that so-called cycling advocates cease their gratuitous offering/promotion of painted broad strokes about "education" - until such time as specifics are offered about who is to be educated, by whom, educated in what subject; and most importantly what is to be gained and by whom (and what makes you think so)?

No more vague la-de-da feel-good BS (i.e painted broad strokes for general ideas). State the specific problem, WHY it is a problem, and how/why your SPECIFIC solution will do a lick of good towards resolving this so-called problem.

I would assume from your zealous quotations you find the entire subject repulsive and will continue in your enlightened "When they pry my bike from my cold dead hands" army of one. Or, you could offer ideas, examples and proposals that promote cycling for the entire community.
What I find repulsive is a handful of self appointed cycling "advocates" scheming to inflict their (often wacky) version of education on to the rest of the cycling community despite a complete lack of any documented evidence of its serving any useful purpose.

Do they still teach pedestrian traffic safety in elementary school?
I can (vaguely) remember being taught about cross walks and traffic lights and such at a very young age.
This is the time to start teaching bicycle safety too, although little kids shouldn't be riding on streets with heavy traffic. Just point out that bikes have to do the same as cars, stop at crosswalks, red lights, etc.
In Drivers Ed, it should be stressed that bicycles have the same rights and obligations as cars, and additionally drivers should be taught how to overtake a bike correctly and how to treat cyclists as taffic.
These are pre-existing programs that are considered valuable enough to society that time is taken to teach them, it wouldn't be a huge step to introduce bicycle safety to them.

The idea of licensing bicyclists is not new. It was last knocked around the MA state legislature during the bike boom of the 1970's, as record numbers of adults were taking up cycling as a means to beat gas lines and protect the ecology. (A far cry from today, sorry to say.) This caught the interest of some state lawmakers, who were looking for a new source of revenue. Luckily, The idea went nowhere.

If you look at the history of licensing automobiles and drivers you'll find that it was always about raising revenue first, identifying drivers second, safety is just a pretext.

Bicycles get taxed at the point of sale, and it's just not worth it after that.

I had bicycle ed during sixth grade or so... everyone here was given it.


That is exactly what we need here.

There is already talk of a pedestrian license, the "national ID card". YAWPSI ("Yet Another Worthless, Pointless, Stupid Idea", I just made that up).

If you look at the history of licensing automobiles and drivers you'll find that it was always about raising revenue first, identifying drivers second, safety is just a pretext.

Bicycles get taxed at the point of sale, and it's just not worth it after that.

Yes.

OK. I offer the proposal that so-called cycling advocates cease their gratuitous offering/promotion of painted broad strokes about "education" - until such time as specifics are offered about who is to be educated, by whom, educated in what subject; and most importantly what is to be gained and by whom (and what makes you think so)?

No more vague la-de-da feel-good BS (i.e painted broad strokes for general ideas). State the specific problem, WHY it is a problem, and how/why your SPECIFIC solution will do a lick of good towards resolving this so-called problem.

Heck yes.

What I find repulsive is a handful of self appointed cycling "advocates" scheming to inflict their (often wacky) version of education on to the rest of the cycling community despite a complete lack of any documented evidence of its serving any useful purpose.

Right on!

I had bicycle education in elementary school too, and at more than more grade. I think there should be some in high school too when kids are at legal age for driving and during driver's ed so they can learn how to deal with bicycles on the road.

Lets all pitch in money and get sponsors to run a TV ad-campaign to raise awareness for cyclists targetted at cyclists and drivers :p

I haven't read all this yet so maybe this has already been suggested, but there is one other place where all children are required to attend by law: grade school.

I'll bet it would be easier to mandate cycling instruction (as part of P.E. for instance) for all sixth graders in the country than to set up the institutions for licensing. That, coupled by voluntary outreach programs for current adults should reach everyone given enough time.

I haven't read all this yet so maybe this has already been suggested, but there is one other place where all children are required to attend by law: grade school.

I'll bet it would be easier to mandate cycling instruction (as part of P.E. for instance) for all sixth graders in the country than to set up the institutions for licensing. That, coupled by voluntary outreach programs for current adults should reach everyone given enough time.

What has not been suggested or even hinted at is: Any statement of the problem to be solved by "education", nor any suggestion of any specific "education" solution that addresses solving the alleged problem; i.e. WHO is going to decide what is the appropriate education solution, let alone what subject matter will be taught to captive students of various backgrounds, skills, motivations, and traffic environments?

And of course the kicker - complete silence on the issue of no credible evidence of any effectivenes/impact of so-called cycling education programs on altering cyclist (positive or negative) behavior. It apparantly is not that easy getting beyond proposing obscure solutions to unstated cryptic problems.

And of course the kicker - complete silence on the issue of no credible evidence of any effectivenes/impact of so-called cycling education programs on altering cyclist (positive or negative) behavior. It apparantly is not that easy getting beyond proposing obscure solutions to unstated cryptic problems.

The Effectiveness of Cyclist Training

1 A HISTORY OF CYCLIST TRAINING IN GREAT BRITAIN ( PDF format 31kb)

Cyclist training began in 1947, although its roots stretch back to the 1930s when cycling organisations were pressing the Government to include cyclist training in the school curriculum. World War Two delayed matters and it wasn’t until 7 October 1947 that the first Cycling Proficiency Test took place (indoors) at RoSPA’s Road Safety Congress. Seven children took the Test that day. Half a century later, between 200,000 and 250,000 children receive some kind of cycle training each year.

In 1958, the Government funded the introduction of RoSPA’s National Cycling Proficiency Scheme (NCPS). In 1974, Local Authorities assumed statutory responsibility for road safety, including the provision of child cyclist training. By this time, courses increasingly included practice on public roads, although the debate about this continues to this day.

During the 1980s and 1990s new courses were developed by RoSPA, by individual local authorities and by the Scottish Road Safety Campaign. Many were Cycling Awareness Courses based on a problem-solving approach rather than instruction approach of the NCPS.

All this meant that the type and nature of cyclist training courses varied considerably, and there has not been a standard, national course for many years. Although this had advantages, in that it allowed courses to reflect local policies and circumstances, it also meant that the quality and effectiveness of courses differed. Inevitably, some courses were more effective than others.

In view of this, RoSPA conducted a review of cyclist training in 1992, comprising a questionnaire survey and a series of regional seminars. As expected, wide variations in the type and nature of courses were found, including differences in:
the minimum age for trainees
whether or not on﷓road training was conducted
the length of courses
the recruitment, training and supervision of instructors
whether a test was conducted.

This illustrated the need for guidance on minimum standards. In 1993, RoSPA, with the help of a Working Group, produced a Code of Practice for cyclist training. This was revised and published as “Guidelines for the Management and Operation of Cyclist Training” in 2000.

2 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CYCLIST TRAINING

Does cyclist training work, and if so, what type of courses are most effective? Several studies have assessed the benefits of child cyclist training. Nearly all have examined whether it improves knowledge, attitudes and observed behaviour, rather than whether trained children have less accidents than untrained children.

2.1 "Children and Cycling: The Effects of the NCPS in the County of Hereford and Worcester", County of Hereford and Worcester, 1976
A parental questionnaire survey concerning children's cycling accident involvement and exposure to traffic. A control group of children who had not been trained had 3 to 4 times as many casualties as the trained group. Those who had been trained tended to:
cycle more
cycle on roads more than before training
cycle to school more than those in the control group.

Nearly all (97%) parents of the children who had been trained considered them able to cycle on their own. Over three quarters (79%) of the parents of untrained children also thought their offspring were able to cycle on their own.

2.2 "Comparison of On﷓road and Off﷓road Cycle Training for Children" , TRRL Laboratory Report 902, 1979
Three groups of children were given practical cycling tests. One group had been trained entirely in the playground, one group on public roads and the third was a control group who received no training. Children aged 8, 9 and 10 years were trained separately.

Before training there were no significant differences between the three groups. Training, both on and off the road, resulted in a large reduction in errors made by all age groups, but the road﷓trained group performed significantly better than the playground﷓trained group. The control group showed no significant improvement. The improvements were still apparent 6 to 8 months later although not so marked. 8 year old children did not benefit from either playground or road training as much as the older children.

2.3 "Evaluation of a Cycling Proficiency Training Course Using Two Behaviour Recording Methods" , TRRL Laboratory Report 890, 1979
A small group of children received NCPS training entirely in the playground over three and half weeks. A control group received no training. The cycling behaviour of the two groups were recorded on the TRRL's road system and on public roads, before and immediately after training, and two months later.

The training improved the children's cycling behaviour. There was no improvement in the control group. The improvements in the trained group were greater on the TRRL's road system (where the children knew they were being observed) than on public roads. The results indicated that children may not transfer all of their training into practical use.

2.4 "Children and Cycling: A study into Various Methods of Training Child Cyclists", County of Hereford and Worcester, 1981.
Three groups of children aged 9 to 11 years were trained. One group received an NCPS course, one group received a mainly theoretical course and the third group received a combination of the two. Each group was given a practical test before their course, immediately afterwards and three months later.

Practical training on its own and in conjunction with theoretical work significantly improved the children's cycling performance, and the improvement was still apparent after three months. Theoretical work on its own did not improve cycling performance.

2.5 An Evaluation of a Cycling Safety Scheme in Buckinghamshire Middle Schools", Cranfield Institute of Technology ",1987
Two groups of children, one who had taken a cycling awareness course and one who had no training, completed a questionnaire about the way they cycle. The questionnaire was completed before the training course, and after its completion. The course improved the way children cycled, particularly their use of observation. The control group showed no improvement.

2.6 "Casualty Reduction Strategy for Child Cyclists", Bedfordshire County Council (unpublished), 1991
The minimum age for cycle training was raised to 11 years in Bedfordshire, mainly because local studies found that children were not transferring what they had learned at one junction to other junctions, and some were making major errors. Subsequently, casualties aged 11 and over dropped, and there was a slight reduction in casualties aged under 11, possibly due to parents not allowing them to ride on the road until they had been trained.

2.7 "The Development and Evaluation of Two Instructional Methods for Young Cyclists", University of Groningen Traffic Research Centre, 1988
Two groups of children were trained using different methods on a traffic training ground. The first method comprised a one hour session in which the children practised skills and manoeuvres demonstrated by an adult cyclist. No explanation of the underlying rules was given. The second method involved an indoor theory session followed by an outdoor practical session in which the instructor corrected the children when they made errors.

The children were tested before and immediately after the course and one month later. The first method was deemed adequate for teaching basic skills but not for roadcraft. The second method appeared to have a negative effect on traffic behaviour. The report concluded "in interaction with other traffic, children seem to use their own, individually determined rules".

2.8 “Pedal Cycle Accidents - A Hospital Based Study”, TRL Research Report 220, 1989.
A study of 772 accidents involving cyclists who attended the Accident and Emergency Department of the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxfordshire. The study examined reporting rates, accident circumstances, injury patterns and other factors, including whether the injured cyclist had ever taken a training course. It found that trained children may be three times less likely to become a casualty than those who had not been trained.

2.9 "Young Cyclists and Moped Riders", University of Groningen Traffic Research Centre, 1990
Observational studies in which cyclists were covertly filmed, and further studies investigating the factors that influence their behaviour. The behaviour of young cyclists deviated considerably from the required norm, apparently because their knowledge of rules was insufficient and the task of controlling the bicycle required much of their attention.

Secondary schoolage children possessed the required knowledge and skills to ride safely but often did not follow the rules because they questioned their usefulness and relevance. Adult cyclists also deviated from the desired cycling behaviour, but usually only when they considered it safe to do so. The report concludes that traffic education has to be relevant for the target group and "practical training in the normal traffic environment is essential".

2.10 "Evaluation of the Council's Child Cyclist Training Scheme", London Borough of Bexley, 1992
A questionnaire survey of children who had attended the Bexley's cycling awareness course between 1987 and 1991. A control group of children who had not been trained also completed the questionnaire. Children who had been trained were more likely to ride on public roads, were more likely to ride on 'busy' roads and more likely to ride to school. Trained children were less likely to be involved in a cycling accident, whether on or off road.

2.11 "A Study of Cycle Training Methodology in Great Britain", Hertfordshire County Council, 1993
A questionnaire survey of Road Safety Units of County Councils and London Borough Councils in Great Britain found that those authorities who responded used either off﷓road training or on﷓road training. Counties were more likely to train on public roads. There was no variation in pass rates regardless of whether the training was on or off road. On road training required 50% more instructors than playground training. Whether on or off road, training had little effect on child accident casualty statistics in the 61% of authorities who supplied relevant statistics.

2.12 "Training Young Cyclists to Cope with Dynamic Traffic Situations", Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 26 No 2, 1994
Two methods for teaching 8 and 9 year old children how to behave at traffic junctions were compared. The first involved a teacher demonstrating the required behaviour, after which the children practised it with the teacher and then on their own. The second method mixed theoretical teaching of safe cycling behaviour with practical training in which the trainees were corrected every time they made a mistake.

The children were tested before and immediately after training and one month later. Both methods improved general cycling behaviour and the improvements were still apparent one month after training. The second method also improved knowledge of junction rules although this improvement had disappeared within a month. Neither method improved children's decision﷓making at junctions. The report concludes that children develop their own informal (defensive) rules for dealing with other traffic and that training should be based on these 'rules' rather than on formal rules of 'prescribed' behaviour.

2.13 “The Effectiveness of Child Cyclist Training Schemes”, TRL Report 214, 1996
A more recent and extensive research project into the effectiveness of child cycle training schemes which aimed to determine whether cyclist training had a positive and lasting effect on road safety knowledge and cycling skills of children and whether some schemes were more effective than others.
Eight different types of courses were assessed:
NCPS, intensive (spread over a short time) with off-road training only
NCPS, intensive and including on-road training
NCPS, extensive (lasting several weeks) with off-road training only
NCPS, extensive and including on-road training
RoSPA Righttrack Cycling Awareness Programme
Oxfordshire County Council Training Course: a variation on Righttrack
London Borough of Croydon Scheme: a two-staged course
The Scottish Cyclist Training Scheme: a three-staged course

Approximately 2,000 children, aged 12 to 13 years, took part in the study, half of whom had received one of the training courses described above and the rest of whom had not been formally trained. The children were interviewed approximately two years after taking cyclist training to assess its lasting effectiveness.

The children completed three different exercises:
a questionnaire about general road safety knowledge and risk-taking
a practical cycling test on a road near the school
a ‘cycling log book’ giving details about their cycling during one week.

Questionnaire Results
The trained children had a better general knowledge of cycling than the untrained children. Also trained children were less likely to report risky behaviour. Detailed analysis indicated that this was a consequence of training, rather than because inherently ‘safe’ children chose to be trained.

Practical Test Results
Significantly more trained children than untrained were assessed as ‘safe’ in the practical test.
Table 1. The Practical Test
Safe Unsafe
Trained 75% 25%
Untrained 53% 47%

Cycle Log Results
There was very little difference in the amount of cycling by trained and untrained children, although 60% of the trained children said they rode on the road more often after they had been trained.

Effectiveness of Different Types of Courses
Children who had been trained on cycling awareness courses generally performed better than those trained on an instruction-based course. The most effective courses were those which included on-road training and were conducted over several weeks rather than over one or two weeks. Multi-stage courses were especially effective. The report concludes that cycle training improves skills and knowledge, and the effects last for at least two years.

2.14 “School based Bicycle Safety Education and Bicycle Injuries in Children: A Case-Control Study”, John Carlin, Injury Prevention, 1998
This study compared 148 children between 9 and 14 years old who attended an Accident and Emergency Department in Melbourne following a bicycle accident, with a control group of 130 children who cycled. The objective was to assess the effectiveness of “Bike Ed”, the Australian cyclist training scheme which was launched in 1980 and is run in around one third of schools in Victoria. It comprises three stages:
basic traffic rules taught in the classroom
off-road cycling training to improve control skills
on-road cycle training.

This study involved interviewing the children and their parents to explore bicycle knowledge and practice, riding exposure, whether they had taken a “Bike Ed” course and what limits parents set on their children’s cycling. Two-thirds of the accidents examined did not involve a motor vehicle. Almost half (42%) occurred when the children were playing on their bicycles. Most of the injuries were minor, although 16% required hospital admission. A higher proportion (36%) of children who had been trained had accidents than those who had not been trained (25%).

The report concludes that there is no evidence that the Bike Ed course results in a lower accident risk, and some evidence that children who have taken a course face a higher risk, possibly because some parents believed the “Bike Ed” course “immunised” their children against road safety risks.

3 CONCLUSION

Training is an important strand in the wider safety strategy for cyclists. It must go hand in hand with measures to create a safer cycling environment and measures to improve the behaviour of motorists.

It seems likely that courses will increasingly be organised as part of wider activities, such as Safer Routes to School projects or local policies to encourage cycling.

However, one area that has not yet been effectively addressed on a national basis is the management of instructors, tutors and examiners. A training course is as good as those who deliver it, and the training of cycling instructors and tutors varies widely, and very often consists of a novice instructor observing an experienced one for a short time.

RoSPA thinks that a national standard for instructor training, perhaps linked to an accreditation scheme or some form of register would significantly enhance both the quality of training and the status of the instructors.

Finally, although there is research showing the benefits of cyclist training, it would be very helpful to have research that compared the accident and casualty rates of trained cyclists to those of untrained ones.

/* Taken from http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/cycling/cyclist_training_effectiveness.htm

I learned bike safety when I was a kid watching commercials in between cartoons after school and on Saturday mornings. I was also shown a couple bike safety films (yup, films!, not video cassettes) that showed the proper hand signals, to stay to the right and obey all traffic laws, also when I was a kid, in school.

I remember one particular film on bike safety started off with a lily white blonde kid in a matching track suit stopping to check out his bike. Cut to a scene of three black kids, some of them popping wheelies! Cut back to the same three black kids stealing the white kid's bike by grabbing the handlebars as they rode by and a close up of the white kid in shock! That film was universally panned by everyone in my class of mostly black and hispanic kids with a couple whites and one asian. You don't stop in the middle of the street just to look at your rear wheel! He's lucky he didn't get run over by a car driven by black people!

The Effectiveness of Cyclist Training
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/cycling/cyclist_training_effectiveness.htm
2 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CYCLIST TRAINING

Does cyclist training work, and if so, what type of courses are most effective? Several studies have assessed the benefits of child cyclist training. Nearly all have examined whether it improves knowledge, attitudes and observed behaviour, rather than whether trained children have less accidents than untrained children.

If the defined problem to be solved is getting children (only) to pass a test of no known correlation to real world results, test(s) prepared by the educator/promoters/instructors to measure only what they are teaching, then there may be some useful information to be gleaned from these studies. In other words effectiveness is being measured by the ability of children to score well on tests (or test courses) that were devised by the agency promoting/selling the training program to children. No more and a lot less than meets the eye.

The rospa.com cites a dozen or so tests with assorted results other than a consistent tendency to reach the conclusions that the type of instruction preferred by the sponsor is better than the rest.

With scant exception, what is being measured is the ability of children when tested, to regurgitate the knowledge recently taught. No measurement of real world results; no measurement of actual reduced accidents, scant observation/measurement of real world behavior and, with the exception of one barely described test, no measurement of significant CHANGES in cyclist behavior after training/education. Needless to say none of this addresses adult behavior or response to (non) voluntary training.

Thanks do go to carless for pointing out this URL and I modify my previous post to indicate "scant" rather than "zero" evidence has been shown to support the "effectiveness" of cyclist training, ESPECIALLY in relation to risk reduction/safety issues.


3 CONCLUSION
(1)Training is an important strand in the wider safety strategy for cyclists. It must go hand in hand with measures to create a safer cycling environment and measures to improve the behaviour of motorists.

(2)It seems likely that courses will increasingly be organised as part of wider activities, such as Safer Routes to School projects or local policies to encourage cycling.

(3)However, one area that has not yet been effectively addressed on a national basis is the management of instructors, tutors and examiners. A training course is as good as those who deliver it, and the training of cycling instructors and tutors varies widely, and very often consists of a novice instructor observing an experienced one for a short time.

(4)RoSPA thinks that a national standard for instructor training, perhaps linked to an accreditation scheme or some form of register would significantly enhance both the quality of training and the status of the instructors.

(5)Finally, although there is research showing the benefits of cyclist training, it would be very helpful to have research that compared the accident and casualty rates of trained cyclists to those of untrained ones.

Conclusions (1) and (2) {my numbering}, with which I agree cannot be deduced from the references provided by the RoSPA. Conclusions (3) and (4) seem especially heavy handed editorials promoting the RoSPA agenda/available product with no evidence provided.

Conclusion (5) gets to the nitty gritty of effectiveness of cyclist training – Is the goal to reduce cyclist risk? Or is the goal to serve some sort of self promoting agenda of the "educators" to educate?

WTF? Bikes and the people who drive them are only a tiny fraction of the problem. Bad car drivers and poorly designed roads cause far more incidents. Educate the car drivers. Make them take a test every 5 years, both written and practical, and if they fail it take their license away. And design roads for more than cars. Seems pretty simple to me.

FWIW, my 6 year old had a bicycle education thing in school the other day. They told him not to let things hang out of baskets because they might get caught in the spokes. Made a big impression too.

In Pittsburgh police do not ticket cyclists. That is their policy. Why? Because, "they dont have license plates". But that is only a policy, they could give cyclists a ticket, there is no state law saying otherwise. They might have to "John Doe" a violator, like they would a motorist who refused to give information. (throw you in the slammer until you give your real name or they find you prints.)

I think that if police where fair and did not resort to harrrasing or dangerous behavior when stoping cyclists, that they should give tickets. Yeah right. I can see being cut off and yelled at and perhaps tasered over a minor infraction. Currently I could see car drivers getting off because of unfair treatment, the argument might be, "your selectively targeting cars but ignoring bikes".

The fact that cyclists do not get tickets probably increases the infraction rate among cyclists and leads to more motorists being biased because of the idiot cyclists who never follow the rules. You can make something illegal, but you cant make people stop doing it.

Now there is a catch 22 here. City officials say that they cannot allow cyclists in the bus lanes, because they'd do bad things, like pass on the couter-flow side rather than wait behind for a stopped bus. So since we do not get tickets, they will not change the rules. This is a circular argument and has nothing to do with the law, which currently provides for tickets to cyclists who do not follow the rules.

One idea that has been discussed is to have safety volunteers who would "remind" cyclsits to follow the rules. That is funny. Perhaps we could get some people to hang out and give pretend warnings to cyclists to remind them to play by the rules. This sounded a bit paternalistic to me. But have a positive effect, if news where on scene and there where pretty red fake tickets being handed out by beautiful bikin' babes.

By the way licensing would require tests, money and a drivers license and perhaps inpspections and stickers any of which would decrease cycling.

I think that the "bad" cyclist in this original post was off his meds or something.

In Austin they require pedicab drivers to have licenses, but the test is pretty easy. Just a short written test (half on traffic rules and half on the city's main attractions and where they were located), a clean driving (auto) record, and they also required us to already have an auto driver's license. --- at least that was the law back in 2001 when I was doing the pedi-cab thing.

But as to licensing non-commericial cyclists, that is absolutely nuts. With a very few rare exceptions it is hard to kill anyone but yourself on a bicycle. Licensing should be there to protect other folks which is why it makes sense for driving an auto.

I started thinking about how to teach all cyclists what the rules of the road really are. A public information campaign probably wouldn't reach everyone, and driver's ed sure won't teach you how to ride a bike. Then I remembered hearing that motorcycle riders need a "motorcycle endorsement" on their driver's license in order to show that they've taken the motorcycle version of driver's ed. Maybe a "bicycle endorsement," and mandatory education for cyclists, would help all of us share the road safely.

Has there been any discussion of this in the past?

What do you think the pros and cons would be?

Why not require a license for walking outdoors, swimming, jogging, child rearing, having sex? Dude, get a grip.

What I find repulsive is a handful of self appointed cycling "advocates" scheming to inflict their (often wacky) version of education on to the rest of the cycling community despite a complete lack of any documented evidence of its serving any useful purpose.

I got a long term education proposal - how about just teaching our own kids as we raise them. Then they teach their kids, and on and on. Wow, what a novel concept.

I started thinking about how to teach all cyclists what the rules of the road really are. A public information campaign probably wouldn't reach everyone, and driver's ed sure won't teach you how to ride a bike. Then I remembered hearing that motorcycle riders need a "motorcycle endorsement" on their driver's license in order to show that they've taken the motorcycle version of driver's ed. Maybe a "bicycle endorsement," and mandatory education for cyclists, would help all of us share the road safely.

It won't. Every single thing I hear people whine about cyclists doing (travelling in the wrong direction, running red lights etc etc) I see people in cars do just as often, and they are supposedly licenced. The only way to fix it is law enforcement, plain and simple. Education will not work if your audience is unable or unwilling to receive the message, and making them sit a test to obtain a piece of paper won't change that. All it really does is encourage them to study the content enough just to pass the test, and forget/ignore it five minutes later.