> don't even have to know the rules of the road

I'm not aware of any country where that is true, unless you're being pedantic and making a distinction between having to know the rules vs having to follow them. Every road user in every country I know of has to follow the rules of the road, no matter if they're a cyclist or a pedestrian or anyone else.

> Trouble is, during an incident between a cyclist and a car driver the sympathy vote is in the cyclist's favor.

What do you mean by "trouble"? This is perfectly logical. The cyclist presents precisely zero danger to the car driver, but the car presents deadly danger to the cyclist.

> It's a one-way street (as it's narrow) but recently the Council has made it two-way for cyclists

Yeah, all one-way streets should be like that. Streets are designated to be one-way for a reason. Either they're too narrow for two vehicles to pass each other safely or making them two way would increase traffic too much. None of this applies to bicycles.

> drivers (usually visitors) often mistakenly drive the wrong way down this street and it's been the situation for years (from street arrangements and local geography it seems the logical way to go, and the sineage is poor and hard to see)

Go ahead and complain about the poor signage then? What's this have to do with cyclists?

> From my perspective it's high time this nonsense stopped.

You haven't really provided any arguments here besides the rather incoherent example.

> The first thing would be license cyclists

Sigh. How many times are we going to have to listen to such poorly thought-out suggestions? Do you know just how many bicycles there are out there? Do you understand the risk a driver poses to others? Do you understand the risk a cyclist poses?

I am pretty sure in most countries riding a bike on a normal street requires absolutely no license, verification or anything. Even a 5 year old could and would be able to ride there (if their parents permitted or for whatever reason).

So this means that bike riders do not need to know exactly what all signs mean, what are the rules of giving way (or receiving it), etc.

So, that point is absolutely valid.

I have a friend who doesn't have a car licence and cannot distinguish many signs (for instance the circular one with red border and full white inside) or when to expect to have the priority.

Not supporting the rest of the comment, just that specific statement which is a valid one.

Thanks, you've just clearly illustrated the unresolved (and seemingly unresolvable) dichotomy between cyclists and four-wheel vehicle drivers.

It's unresolvable because of political ideology, like the chasm between right-wing conservatives and liberals, views seem almost genetic and immutable (it's been so ever since bicycles took to the roads—even in the days of horse drawn vehicles).

"I'm not aware of any country where that is true, unless you're being pedantic"

Pedantic? Rubbish, unless cyclists are licensed by way of a thorough examination of the road rules, etc. then there's no way to know if a cyclist knows the rules or not. Going on the many violations I see cyclists commit every day it's clear many do not. Licensing cyclists would bring them into line with other road users, for starters, they'd also be vulnerable to losing their licenses for violations.

Fact is, as a motor vehicle driver I do not feel safe on the roads with unpredictable unlicensed cyclists about. If you do not believe cyclists are an undisciplined and unpredictable lot that worry the shit out of many licenced drivers because of the way they ride and regularly violate traffic rules (like jumping red lights at intersections) then you live in fantasyland.

For every violation I witness car drivers make I reckon I see about a dozen from cyclists. By your views you'd have to condone this alacrity or they'd be contradiction with each other. Alternatively, it's cognitive dissonance so you've not noticed the fact.