It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas, but not in a good way: French officials slammed for sticking Christmas tree in the middle of trans-European bike route; Leknessund shows off icicles on eyelashes in -24C training ride + more on the live blog

It's not even a left v right kind of politics issue. It's just UKs systemic shortsightedness vs Nordic investing for the future

ROOTminus1 wrote:

It's not even a left v right kind of politics issue. It's just UKs systemic shortsightedness vs Nordic investing for the future

Good job Rishi approved the new O&G licences for the North Sea then

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

ROOTminus1 wrote:

It's not even a left v right kind of politics issue. It's just UKs systemic shortsightedness vs Nordic investing for the future

Good job Rishi approved the new O&G licences for the North Sea then

In a better world, sure, it could be a good thing. But this is Britain, and our "leaders" from either side of house can't balance the books, keep a promise, nor contract out any project effectively.
The only way a gov't project doesn't go overdue or over budget, is because it got cancelled after a significant portion of costs has already gone into some chum's back pocket

essexian wrote:

In Norway, they build their homes to be able to handle the cold. In the UK, we build homes so home builders can make huge profits, part of which they donate to the Tory Party.

In Norway, they have a fund paid for by their oil sales which helps the country as a whole afford the things required to manage a cold climate. In the UK, Mr Starmers best mate Mrs Thatcher sold off the UK oil production for a few quid so now we have thousands unable to pay their fuel bills/ heat their homes/afford to eat/drive on shit roads etc etc

In Norway, they have a working relationship with the EU. In the UK, we told them to get stuffed and now are now towards the bottom of any growth list you care to look at. 

Thus, in Tory UK, -2C is likely to kill you; whereas in Norway, its likely not to be much of an issue. 

In Norway they pay taxes so eye wateringly high it makes your goolies shrink inside without the cold. 

Have you seen the tax rates in the UK...

https://obr.uk/box/the-uks-tax-burden-in-historical-and-international-co...
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/brits-face-biggest-tax-burden-since-world-war...
https://ifs.org.uk/articles/will-be-biggest-tax-raising-parliament-record

And what have we got to show for it.... record waiting lists for NHS treatment, roads which look like the IDF have visisted, school falling down around childrens ears, the rich getting richer and richer....

"In Norway, they build their homes to be able to handle the cold. In the UK, we " ... generally don't have the extremes of cold that would make building houses designed for -24 a good use of resources. This is a bit like the drivers looking to Canada or Russia, then complaining that the UK doesn't have an army of snowploughs sitting idle for 360+ days of most years. 

Also, I'm sitting in my 7-year-old flat and haven't yet needed to put the heating on despite it being freezing most of the last few days. Whatever else is wrong with newbuilds, adequate insulation isn't a problem in the many I've been in over the last decade. 

In Norway the oil sales used to pay for the world's most complete fleet of electric cars causes many more emissions than saved by the fleet of electric cars.

They might be really good at the practical side even if they don't understand the road signs !

essexian wrote:

Should we really have to share the roads with someone who takes a test 60, that 60 times before passing???

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/04/60th-time-lucky-learner-...

God knows how bad at actually driving they will be.

Time for retests for all every five years. Its madness that I've not been retested in 38 years!

Haha I saw that, the chances are that it was a fluke too that they passed, I mean after 60 attempts surely you'd sometime pass!

When I was learning to drive, you were considered pretty dopey not to pass you're theory test, and something only the stupidest person couldn't do - and even they weren't typically far off. 

If someone fails the driving test that many times there is something very wrong with their standard of driving.
Driving is a priviledge, not a right.
Maybe there should be a law (the equivalent to points on licences) that says something like "Fail 3 times (in a row, presumably) and You have to wait 2 years to try again...".
The pass may have been a fluke.
At the end of the day, do any sort of normal gambling for long enough and You're almost certain to win at some point.

Theory test.
Maybe their basic comprehension is poor. Tells you nothing about their ability to drive.
If they failed it due to hazard perception, that would be another matter.

Understanding how the roads work and comprehending signs and situations is a critical part of driving safely. There is a reason driving examiners don't even get in the car with learners for the practical test until they have passed the theory test. 

Either way, I still think there should be a temporary pause before a learner can apply again.

There is. Three days. 

Hirsute wrote:

Theory test. Maybe their basic comprehension is poor. Tells you nothing about their ability to drive. If they failed it due to hazard perception, that would be another matter.

If you don't understand what road signs mean, then that does have quite a big effect on your ability to drive safely.

The understanding of signs isn't so much an issue as they are pretty much either order or warning with an image. I think the bigger issues kick in when you're reading about the more detailed stuff then writing them down. I've a neighbour who has been banned with a retest required. He has no issue with signs and understanding them. He does have a challenge with the current theory test and will never regain his license. 
 

Interestingly it was mainly the CTC and NCU who started to erect warning signs in the early days for other cyclists before the AA got in on the act. 

don't allow retest withn 3 months, obviously further training is required. At least this would keep these types off the road for 15 years, and maybe they'd realise they don't need a car after all by then.

True.

Or as has been said sporadically in the past, make learning to cycle on roads mandatory before learning to drive.
Not just to (hopefully) make drivers safer around cyclists, but to show new learners that cycling is a viable alternative for some journeys and usually quicker during rush hour traffic.

I fear to write this but..... I feel passing a test to show you are a competent cyclist and then the same on a motor bike should be required before you can even start to learn to drive a car on the road (yes, of course there would need to be exceptions for disabled people).

So....and here it comes, cyclists should be licenced.... if they want to become licenced to drive a car.

essexian wrote:

So....and here it comes, cyclists should be licenced.... if they want to become licenced to drive a car.

Are you thinking that to get a driving licence, you must first get a cycle licence? If you never intend to drive a car, you don't need a cycle licence?

Other people have suggested mandatory cycling for drivers as part of their driving test, so I don't think you have anything to fear from suggesting that.

HoldingOn wrote:

essexian wrote:

So....and here it comes, cyclists should be licenced.... if they want to become licenced to drive a car.

Are you thinking that to get a driving licence, you must first get a cycle licence? If you never intend to drive a car, you don't need a cycle licence?

Yep. 

Cycle licencing is an absolute no-no.
To bring that in would enhance some drivers' mindset that all cyclists have to have a licence, pay "road tax", get insurance etc.

The point is to have learner drivers simply experience cycling conditions on the road to make them better drivers.
(The additional benefits help of course.)

With the growth of Ebikes, both legal and illegal, cycle licences are on the way whatever happens. 

With regards to the other things you mention, I don't actually see much of an issue with cyclists having insurance. Perhaps a £10 charge when the licence is applied for will cover the cyclist for 5 years until they have to renew their overall licence. 

essexian wrote:

With the growth of Ebikes, both legal and illegal, cycle licences are on the way whatever happens. 

No they aren't.

Oh yes they are. 

My bet would be within five years. For ebikes to start and then on to the rest of us. 

The Government will find a reason.... money making no doubt, to introduce them. 

Illegal vehicles on roads should be dealt with by existing legislation.

The costs of licensing are astronomical, so that's not going to happen but using a bike as part passing a driving test could be brought in.

mitsky wrote:

Cycle licencing is an absolute no-no.

... I don't know - you could start with a walking "licence" and work your way up?  IIRC at primary school lots of us did a RoSPA cycling proficiency training / test - not sure it was actually mandatory for anything but strongly encouraged.

It's routine in NL IIRC.

mitsky wrote:

To bring that in would enhance some drivers' mindset that all cyclists have to have a licence, pay "road tax", get insurance etc.

The point is to have learner drivers simply experience cycling conditions on the road to make them better drivers.
(The additional benefits help of course.)

If you're trying to do that in the driving test you're too late!

I'm certainly not against a "refresher" then but the sensible (and fun!) way to do this is throughout childhood - so everyone gets a more balanced understanding of the transport modes they'll use and encounter.  (Of course it doesn't hurt if cycling to school is supported - and indeed encouraged - too.)

I never visited one but I believe a few such facilities exist in the UK - albeit I'm not sure if they're set up so you can "drive" and with formal instruction.

Proficiency training is a great thing and should be done more widely, but no one could be stopped from cycling if they hadn't actually done it...

If actual testing and licencing are implemented, on the other hand...

mitsky wrote:

Proficiency training is a great thing and should be done more widely, but no one could be stopped from cycling if they hadn't actually done it...

If actual testing and licencing are implemented, on the other hand...

To get the complete picture it seems people can't be stopped from driving if they haven't done the test.  Even in some cases if they've been previously stopped for not having done it!

I guess I was contrasting "cycling proficiency" (tending to be a "nice to have", for a few) with normal basic education e.g. how to cross roads.  And the fact that if you do want to drive we demand a practical demonstration of competence which a large fraction of the population does indeed go through.