Will!

Should cyclists have to have registration numbers and insurance?

Should cyclists have to have registration numbers and insurance?   66 members have voted

  1. 1. Should cyclists have to have registration numbers and insurance?

    • Yes
      22
    • No
      44

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

191 posts in this topic

4 minutes ago, Byron said:

As an aside. What is the difference between a particle and a particulate?

particulate means (at least partially) comprised of particles.  Whereas particles are just particles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bossybabe said:

I'm not disputing that. I just don't see the point of riding on a main road, breathing in fumes and particulates, when they could be riding in clear air by the river. 

A lot of the time they will be en route to a nice quiet back road. 

Not always. I also don't see the attraction of riding around town on a road bike for fitness or fun. 

I generally put my bike in my car and drive to a nice quiet road to enjoy. Am i double evil :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, ccc said:

A lot of the time they will be en route to a nice quiet back road. 

Not always. I also don't see the attraction of riding around town on a road bike for fitness or fun. 

I generally put my bike in my car and drive to a nice quiet road to enjoy. Am i double evil :D

Triple evil if it's a diesel.  Even worse if you wear lycra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ccc said:

A lot of the time they will be en route to a nice quiet back road. 

Not always. I also don't see the attraction of riding around town on a road bike for fitness or fun. 

I generally put my bike in my car and drive to a nice quiet road to enjoy. Am i double evil :D

 

That's what I used to do but I can't balance on a bike any more. Now I put a dog in the back of the car and drive to the seaside for a walk...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, dgul said:

Triple evil if it's a diesel.  Even worse if you wear lycra.

Yes a diesel !!

No lycra though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, ccc said:

Yes a diesel !!

No lycra though.

Nowt wrong with diesels in general, it's too many diesels in a small area that's the problem (give me diesel trains over ****ing electric sh1te any day).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dgul said:

IMO there is a push to put in proper cycleways -- so the local council put them in wherever it is easy, as that is what they're good at, but leave the difficult bits alone.  This gives the ridiculous situation of a lovely cyclepath running parallel to the nice wide road, then no cycleway (or just a narrow painted bit) going through the narrow junctions down the road, as there it would be 'difficult' to do properly.

The reason why they're using the road along that stretch (and not the cycleway) is probably because they've been on the road for the last x miles and they might as well just keep going along it.

That's probably the reason although the cycleway is a good wide one, safely fenced off from the road and a long one maybe a mile or so long just recently installed along with major road and junction reconstruction and "improvements" (needed due to increasing congestion on a very busy road/junction) all costing a fortune and with plenty of opportunities to get onto the cycleway along that stretch.  One or two of those types of incidents is pretty much nothing of course but they do often seem to be a a bit of a law unto themselves.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Nowt wrong with diesels in general, it's too many diesels in a small area that's the problem (give me diesel trains over ****ing electric sh1te any day).

Once they did away with proper locos, all the kids started getting asthma and ADHD. Coincidence, I think not. Start selling them individual Woodbines again to make up for the soot deficiency they are so obviously suffering from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That looks good to me! (preserved diesels are often rather smokey, they rarely if ever get more than the equivalent of pottering around town when they're designed with long running at higher speeds).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

That looks good to me! (preserved diesels are often rather smokey, they rarely if ever get more than the equivalent of pottering around town when they're designed with long running at higher speeds).

Yeah, as a kid whatever vehicle I was drawing had to have a thick trail of smoke and soot coming out of its exhaust. I feel sorry for today's kids drawing pictures of Teslas and suchlike. Where's the fun in that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have guys on motocross bikes riding down the pavements at school kick out time. Cyclists don't stand a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, whitevanman said:

Yeah, as a kid whatever vehicle I was drawing had to have a thick trail of smoke and soot coming out of its exhaust. I feel sorry for today's kids drawing pictures of Teslas and suchlike. Where's the fun in that?

You can draw the soot coming out of a power station.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies for the relative thread necromancy. Just wanted to drop my 2 cents...

As a driver I have 3rd party insurance (obviously) to comply with the law.

As a cyclist I voluntarily buy 3rd party insurance. You can get it for less than £10 a year, or by joining a group like British Cycling or Cycling UK where it's bundled into their annual membership fee.

For the record, I walk, jog, cycle, use trains (mostly) and occasionally drive. So I'm distributed across the vehicle spectrum but prefer the former types, resorting to public transport for longer journeys.

Compulsory bicycle insurance and registration has been trialled in dozens of countries since the 1890s from Argentina to the Seychelles. It was trialled in Toronto in 1935, ditched in 1957. Holland trialled it in the 1920s and 30s. Ken Livingstone, as Mayor of London, floated it. New York toyed with it. So did Ottawa. More recently, Switzerland operated a "Velovignette" scheme. Cyclists paid CHF6 (around £4) a year and attached a small registration plate to their bikes. It was discontinued in 2012.

In every case these schemes proved too expensive to regulate. The cost of operating them outweighed the revenue, or they were deemed not worth it, impractical. What about cyclists who, as car drivers, already had 3rd party insurance, or children, or people with multiple bikes? Should the licence number apply to a person, then worn on their clothing or backpack?

Moreover they were found to deter would-be cyclists which works against our need to reduce road congestion, air pollution, heart disease, respiratory diseases, obesity and diabetes. Cars encourage a sedentary lifestyle. A healthy, sustainable society needs walkers, joggers and cyclists in greater numbers.

It's true there are some awful cyclists, as there are drivers, landlords, football hooligans tarnishing the reputations of good fans... all walks of life. So I have some sympathy with the notion of a proficiency test for cyclists. But here's the crux:

We are taxed and regulated in proportion to the harm our vehicle poses to society and other road users.

Soaring air pollution kills 40 thousand people each year in the UK alone. Diesel emissions are carcinogenic. Globally, 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year. That's almost one a minute. An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled. Road traffic injuries are set to become the 5th leading cause of death by 2030. More than 24 thousand were killed or seriously injured on Britain's roads last year.

Those ills aren't perpetrated by cyclists*. (They're rather a solution to those ills.) It's why they, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by right, and drivers of motor vehicles use the roads by licence.


* Not entirely true: stats published by the Dept for Transport in 2011 show that 2 (0.5%) pedestrian fatalities involved a cyclist. (The other 99.5% involved a motorised vehicle: car, HGV, bus, motorbike.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, fadanoid said:

Apologies for the relative thread necromancy. Just wanted to drop my 2 cents...

As a driver I have 3rd party insurance (obviously) to comply with the law.

As a cyclist I voluntarily buy 3rd party insurance. You can get it for less than £10 a year, or by joining a group like British Cycling or Cycling UK where it's bundled into their annual membership fee.

For the record, I walk, jog, cycle, use trains (mostly) and occasionally drive. So I'm distributed across the vehicle spectrum but prefer the former types, resorting to public transport for longer journeys.

Compulsory bicycle insurance and registration has been trialled in dozens of countries since the 1890s from Argentina to the Seychelles. It was trialled in Toronto in 1935, ditched in 1957. Holland trialled it in the 1920s and 30s. Ken Livingstone, as Mayor of London, floated it. New York toyed with it. So did Ottawa. More recently, Switzerland operated a "Velovignette" scheme. Cyclists paid CHF6 (around £4) a year and attached a small registration plate to their bikes. It was discontinued in 2012.

In every case these schemes proved too expensive to regulate. The cost of operating them outweighed the revenue, or they were deemed not worth it, impractical. What about cyclists who, as car drivers, already had 3rd party insurance, or children, or people with multiple bikes? Should the licence number apply to a person, then worn on their clothing or backpack?

Moreover they were found to deter would-be cyclists which works against our need to reduce road congestion, air pollution, heart disease, respiratory diseases, obesity and diabetes. Cars encourage a sedentary lifestyle. A healthy, sustainable society needs walkers, joggers and cyclists in greater numbers.

It's true there are some awful cyclists, as there are drivers, landlords, football hooligans tarnishing the reputations of good fans... all walks of life. So I have some sympathy with the notion of a proficiency test for cyclists. But here's the crux:

We are taxed and regulated in proportion to the harm our vehicle poses to society and other road users.

Soaring air pollution kills 40 thousand people each year in the UK alone. Diesel emissions are carcinogenic. Globally, 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year. That's almost one a minute. An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled. Road traffic injuries are set to become the 5th leading cause of death by 2030. More than 24 thousand were killed or seriously injured on Britain's roads last year.

Those ills aren't perpetrated by cyclists*. (They're rather a solution to those ills.) It's why they, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by right, and drivers of motor vehicles use the roads by licence.


* Not entirely true: stats published by the Dept for Transport in 2011 show that 2 (0.5%) pedestrian fatalities involved a cyclist. (The other 99.5% involved a motorised vehicle: car, HGV, bus, motorbike.)

+1, plus can't wait to see the figures for driverless vehicles, the results in the UK may be spectacular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ChewingGrass said:

+1, plus can't wait to see the figures for driverless vehicles, the results in the UK may be spectacular.

What figures? Driverless vehicles are definitely another step down the road to hell, a vision of the future where no-one is trusted to do anything whatsoeve; may as well plug yourself into the Matrix at that point and at least pretend you're not a useless blob being carried around by machines because even tying your own shoelaces has been deemed to hazardous. Driverless vehicles are a solution to a largely non-existant problem; they'll be of great benefit to a few unable to drive, and there are people on the roads who shouldn't be and need removing (screw them for giving them an alternative though), but overall they're a pretty obnoxious concept.

The anti-diesel view has started to feel like it's gone beyond rational considerations and into full-on religious crusade, another cause for the SJWs to latch on to.

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

What figures? Driverless vehicles are definitely another step down the road to hell, a vision of the future where no-one is trusted to do anything whatsoeve; may as well plug yourself into the Matrix at that point and at least pretend you're not a useless blob being carried around by machines because even tying your own shoelaces has been deemed to hazardous. Driverless vehicles are a solution to a largely non-existant problem; they'll be of great benefit to a few unable to drive, and there are people on the roads who shouldn't be and need removing (screw them for giving them an alternative though), but overall they're a pretty obnoxious concept.

The anti-diesel view has started to feel like it's gone beyond rational considerations and into full-on religious crusade, another cause for the SJWs to latch on to.

Was tongue in cheek, as I think the jams and carnage may well spectacular in the UK as its definately not california and the roads are not built on a grid pattern in urban areas. Driving skills of the general population in the UK are streets ahead of your average american and they have to be.

Travelling is farking booring, the actual process of driving is stimulating and humans need mental stimulation, the small minority of geeks and mindless/limp journalists may well be stimulated by the technology involved but the general population will not.

The devil makes work for idle hands, hence the rise of virtue signalling stimulation crazed SJWs. Dread to think of the problems that will be caused socially and mentally to idle drivers.

Diesel is a problem created by politicians and will be milked by politicians for tax revenue with the problem added to by low-mileage thickos who have bought them to use almost exclusively for short journeys in urban areas.

A mass switch to EVs for short  journeys may well also have unintended consequences, the mass rollout of smart-meters may well be big brother trying to head off this issue, expect to see variable electricity tarrifs in the near future to stop the grid melting during peak demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.