Some experts say for road safety cyclists should pass a test before being allowed on public roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is often said that before allowing cycling on public paths, cyclists ought to clear a professional

test

. While

this

has some benefits, I would argue that its demerits are more significant. There are certain causes of letting

the

Correct article usage

apply

show examples

cyclists go through

this

test

. The

first

and foremost is that it will contribute to the safety of participants itself, which is critically important.

Moreover

, to clear the exam everyone has to gain knowledge about all the basic rules and regulations of road safety, which will help in more safe riding;

consequently

, it will narrow down the chances of injuries. Evidence of

this

has been studied in the department of education in the USA: participants who have cleared the road safety

test

for cycling are having 30% less chance of road mishaps than others.

Thus

, if

this

exam has been given priority, more lives can be saved.

On the other hand

, it has a few demerits too, like at the heart of the problem is adequate

time

being wasted while going through the

test

.

In addition

, cyclists have to adhere to a

time-line

Correct your spelling

timeline

show examples

for the

test

, which contributes to a month of

time

, and

also

results mostly come very late. As there is limited

time

for the preparation of the professional events,

this

can hinder their progress, resulting in more failures.

For instance

, as per an article in -'The Times'- 6 out of every 10 cycling professionals would not be able to complete their training before the final race as they get their

test

result very late.

Therefore

, it can put the future of numerous individuals at risk, and place serious pressure on them. To conclude,

Although

going through a professional

test

saves lives, it can be a waste of

time

for a number of athletes, which puts their future in jeopardy.