The question of whether cyclists ought to take a test prior to getting permission to drive on public areas or not is a topic of debate, with some believing that it serves as a deterrent for increasing traffic and accident rates and others arguing it is not necessary. Taking into account of the fact that bikes do not hold as crucial role as motored vehicles on public roads, I advocate for the latter view as it can discourage cycling.
Firstly, mandatory tests for cyclists can be considered as over-regulation. While road safety is paramount, the role of cyclists in contributing to traffic congestions and accidents is relatively minor as opposed to other means of transportation, including but not limited to cars and buses, meaning that such tests might have less impact on dealing with certain issues. Forcing bike riders to take part in mandatory tests can demotivate them because the needed skills for riding a bike, such as balancing and accelerating speed, are often grasped through practice in informal conditions rather than participating in ‘unnecessary’ tests.
Secondly, it can bring some undesirable outcomes. Obligatory tests that are tailored for cyclers do require resources, let alone time. For example, in Germany, people are to pass a test to be allowed to move on roads with bikes. The government of Germany should provide them with enough bikes and proper spots, resulting in spending some amounts of money by Germany’s government. If it were not for tests, they would have invested such summas on alternative things that are more needed than cycling. Therefore, this trend can render financial instability.
In conclusion, while the goal of improving road safety is commendable, requiring cyclists to undergo tests before riding on public roads is not justified since it is likely to demotivate bike users and cause financial disadvantage.