I’m sure most motorists will leap at the chance of paying for something they don’t use,

I don’t use my insurance but I still pay for it because I don’t have the choice – simple 🙂

Agreed there are pragmatic considerations but there’s some very strong factual evidence which demonstrates that when I drive I’m far more of a risk to cyclists than I am when I ride… and therefore the burden of responsibility rests on me more as a driver than a cyclist…

I’m sure most motorists will leap at the chance of paying for something they don’t use, and it’ll help make cyclists even more popular than we already are! Result!

They would not have a choice when it’s compulsory. What cost for <8 hours cycle training compared to gaining a driving licence. If it convinces 10 out of 100 drivers to use a bike to go to the local shops, I’d be happy.

If that’s true, I’d rather it went to child protection, or healthcare, or helped combat poverty.

No argument there but a lot of wasted money could be rained in, in a lot of places.
What’s the cost to tax payers for RTCs including cyclists?

Including the disabled? How’s that going to work?

Really? Stabilisers obviously……………..

If that’s true, I’d rather it went to child protection, or healthcare, or helped combat poverty.

Except that this sort of thing should be at worst a cost neutral thing. You could even not charge drivers for theirs and that still be the case – though it does all depend how you do your accounts.

Including the disabled? How’s that going to work?

I imagine you could allow some exceptions for those truly incapable – when was the last time a registered disabled driver killed a cyclist?

Cougar – Moderator

If that’s true, I’d rather it went to child protection, or healthcare, or helped combat poverty.

Reducing road deaths and injuries saves money on healthcare, protects children, and reduces poverty.

when was the last time a registered disabled driver killed a cyclist?

I don’t know. Do you? You’re implying it doesn’t happen; I wouldn’t like to speculate on statistical variance.

Reducing road deaths and injuries saves money on healthcare, protects children, and reduces poverty.

Bastard. (-:

Yeah I know 😆

I don’t know. Do you?

Well I’ve never seen a news article about one, and I’d suspect it would be a fairly newsworthy story. I’ve never even seen a news story or an anecdote involving somebody being knocked off their bike by somebody registered disabled, and I’ve seen plenty of such stories.

I’m not implying it never happens, simply that the number of cyclists hit by such drivers is so low compared to those hit by people perfectly capable of riding a bike, that using them as a reason not to have compulsory cycle training for all those capable of doing it is nonsensical. In case there is any confusion I am NOT suggesting that drivers incapable of riding a bicycle wouldn’t be allowed behind the wheel if such a policy was introduced.

In case there is any confusion I am NOT suggesting that drivers incapable of riding a bicycle wouldn’t be allowed behind the wheel if such a policy was introduced.

Nor am I, obviously exceptions would need to be made.