EuanB wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:

I'm getting confused. Are you saying that training for cyclists is
not necessary and should not be a requirement for road use,

Correct. Cycling is the most benign form of transport ou of walking,
driving or cycling. Even untrained, cyclists are not at substantially
greater risk of dying on the roads than trained drivers; they are
safer on the road than pedestrians.

Cycling is more bening than walking? How many deaths occurred in Australia
last year of pedestrian to pedestrian impacts? How many pedestrians
destroyed cars, cyclists?

Even in the UK where cycling is substanitially more dangerous than
here in Australia, you're between 10-14 times as likely to die on the
road in the UK as opposed to 4 times as likely in Australia, the
benefits outweigh the risks by 20:1. There is no good reason to
require formal training of cyclists, looked at holistically.

Cycle training is only required for people who don't ride bicycles!

but bicycle training
should be compulsory for non-riders who want to drive a car?

Correct. The leading cause of death for cyclists is when they collide
with cars (or cars collide with them, to cover all angles.) Often this
is becasue drivers don't understand what it's like to be on a bike.
The same could be said of cyclists, that they don't know how to deal
with lorries because they've never driven one, for example, but
cyclists aren't making the choice of using a non-benign mode of
transport. That puts more responsibility on drivers.

You're mad! Cycling's gone to your head. Take some pills mate. By your
reasoning anyone wanting to ride a bicycle should be required to take
pedestrian training, something not needed for actual pedestrians.

Theo