Should children have priority over adults at crossroads?

Our laws don't permit a child to drive a car on the road - the consequences of making a childish mistake controlling a vehicle of that weight and potential speed being too dreadful for society to permit.

Given that bicycles weigh little, and that children riding will struggle to reach 15 mph, let alone 20 mph, it seems reasonable that they are allowed to ride bikes to get around as they're very unlikely to cause injury to another person..

It's illegal for them to cycle on the pavement adjoining the road so they're not likely to bruise or topple grannies.

And it's legal for them to cycle on the road where they're unlikely to damage or kill other road users.

So the only reason that we see so few kids cycling on the streets to school, to the shops, to their friends' houses must be that other road users, the adults who drive around, and the adults that make up the rules, don't make the children welcome on the roads.

Some may say that this is entirely fair. After all, children don't pay road tax (or council tax and income tax for that matter). So they shouldn't have any right to use the road (plus they're probably not doing anything of economic value like delivering horse meat to Tesco). But let's ignore those people who believe that a public resource should only be used by those who are required to pay tax, and that commercial use of space is the only valid use,

Let's consider the way that our society expects the child, as they engage with crushing tons of metal, to deliver an adult level of consistent cycling, mature decision making, assertiveness and communication.

For example, two road users, each one coming from a different direction, arrive from side roads at a cross roads where they must give way. The first part of the decision making is childishly easy. There are 'Give Way' lines. So wait until there's a suitable space on the major road before making your move. But, hang on, who will go first between you and the person opposite?

Is it law that the motorist must let the cyclist, who may be a child, go first? That would be a straightforward thing to teach a child.

It's not. The Instructor course for the National Standard for Cycle Training, describes what the child needs to do:

Trainees should seek eye contact with drivers of vehicles that may emerge from the side road ahead that they intend to ride into. The Highway Code does not contain clear guidance on who has priority so the trainee must communicate effectively so the driver knows who is going first.

I wonder if the Dutch manual for cycle trainers about cross roads contains similar advice?

The Value of Cycle Training (prospective Mayors are you listening?)

There are times when people make disparaging remarks about funding for cycle training, believing it wouldn't be needed if money was instead spent on decent cycling paths and other such infrastructure.

I gave two one-to-one lessons today; one to a boy who wants to cycle to his secondary school and the other to a lady who had, she confided, somehow forgotten how to cycle.

Both of them received useful advice about on-road cycling, but in both cases they also benefited from considerable time spent making the bikes safe to ride.

The first bike needed both brakes adjusting so that they could fulfil their purpose. Part of the lesson was then spent acquiring the skill of stopping using brakes rather than shoe leather.

The second bike, which had been assembled from its box by the partner of the would-be rider, needed the forks to be positioned facing the correct way. The would-be rider was then delighted to discover that she hadn't in fact forgotten how to ride. Her day was fully made after I'd spent thirty seconds altering the position of her brake levers so she could rest her fingers on them while riding without having her wrist at a painful angle. As a non-driver she also appreciated having clarification on the priorities at junctions.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not for an instant saying that I don't want infrastructure in this country to the standards that exist in the Netherlands. As a nation we should be investing heavily in infrastructure and training.

The consequence will be fitter people who are able to travel independently over a considerable area to work, shop, play or study. Air and noise pollution and CO2 emissions will be reduced. Congestion will diminish and streets will become more sociable places. Less call will be made on the NHS to cure problems that exercise helps prevent.

The economic and societal benefits far outweigh the costs of providing both the infrastructure and the training.

I find it extraordinary that swimming lessons are a mandatory part of the school curriculum yet cycle lessons aren't. Isn't it blindingly obvious that both should be mandatory - not least because swimming and cycling are those rare things: activities that are good for us as well as ones that every child who has been well taught absolutely adores doing!

Society has so much to gain from giving every child the tools to make their way around autonomously, healthily and without polluting.

With the Mayoral elections nearing, let's find out whether the candidates  will take serious aim (with serious funds) at having 100% of primary school children doing cycle training before the end of their term of office.

Post Script: There's an interesting BBC news article about swimming in America, where lessons aren't part of the curriculum. This quote particularly resonates with me, "Parents who don't know how to swim are very likely to pass on not knowing how to swim to their children". It applies equally to cycling.