How about a proficiency test for cyclists
Thursday, 24th January 2019

• MY condolences to the family and friends of Dr Peter Fisher, killed on a bicycle, whose inquest was reported, (Family of cyclist killed in Holborn urge Sadiq Khan to make roads safer, January 10). I know I would be devastated if I had lost someone in this way.
The coroner concluded that Dr Fisher was in a blindspot and that the lorry driver could not see him when he moved off. I am writing in response to Dr Greg Carson’s letter (Let’s not miss the point about fatalities of cyclists, January 17), which I know may provoke the ire of the pro-cycling lobby.
I feel Dr Carson’s comments are unreasonable insofar as he contends that the driver of the lorry in such circumstances is still culpable – even though the coroner, with all the facts, concluded that the driver was blameless.
Furthermore, Dr Carson proposes that there should be changes in the law regarding liability in a pedestrian or cyclist/vehicle accident. Well, the only change would be a presumption that one of the parties was automatically guilty. Clearly, that is unfair in law and natural justice.
Having large lorries and cars with sometimes limited visibility sharing the same road space with a 100kg cycle and rider is not going to change.
As they share the same roads as vehicles, surely it makes sense that cyclists should also take a bicycle proficiency course and test before they can cycle on public roads to give them a greater awareness about cycling defensively.
While many cyclists have car licences, the bicycle course would be specifically tailored as they are for motorcycles.
JOHN HELLINIKAKIS
NW3