Will!

Should cyclists have to have registration numbers and insurance?

Should cyclists have to have registration numbers and insurance?  

71 members have voted

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

    • Yes
      26
    • No
      45


Recommended Posts

dgul   
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
ccc   
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
dgul   
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
ccc   
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
Riedquat   
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
Riedquat   

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
Reebo   

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
MrPin   
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
fadanoid   

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
Riedquat   
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
sisyphal   

Anybody know if it's worth reporting stuff like this to the Police? Or would I have to end up under the wheels before they did anything?

Edited by sisyphal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest menace with kids using them on busy pavements - plus wheelies.

http://www.funbikes.co.uk/Velocifero_MAD_48_Volt_1600W_Lithium_Battery_No_78_Electric_Scooter(5953).aspx?gclid=CMm7ufDt99ICFeQW0wod6isIbQ

That type of thing - not necessarily that exact "funbike".


 

Quote

Note: This product is NOT road legal.

So I guess they can only be used on pavements if there's nowhere else to use them.  Max. speed 45 kph although possibly the ones I saw ridden by a bunch of say 14 year old kids on the pavement had a lower max. speed.  

Crazy.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


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

Anybody know if it's worth reporting stuff like this to the Police? Or would I have to end up under the wheels before they did anything?

Better to report them to the institution buying the service with a copy to the service providers.  Say something along the lines of 'the standard of driving is well below that expected', that 'poor professional driving is seldom a symptom of the actual drivers and is normally a sign of the attitude and approaches taken by the contractor to training, health and safety and duty of care'  and that 'in the event of a serious accident or fatality involving this contractor evidence of poor driving (the linked video) and that  the poor driving had been highlighted to both the contractor and the [contracting organisation] (this letter) will be provided to the police and/or coroner'

Share this post


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

The latest menace with kids using them on busy pavements - plus wheelies.

http://www.funbikes.co.uk/Velocifero_MAD_48_Volt_1600W_Lithium_Battery_No_78_Electric_Scooter(5953).aspx?gclid=CMm7ufDt99ICFeQW0wod6isIbQ

That type of thing - not necessarily that exact "funbike".


 

So I guess they can only be used on pavements if there's nowhere else to use them.  Max. speed 45 kph although possibly the ones I saw ridden by a bunch of say 14 year old kids on the pavement had a lower max. speed.  

Crazy.

Nope.  By law they're not allowed on the pavements.  

And they're not allowed on the road (by their own admission)

I think they fall foul of multiple laws.  They are probably classed as a motorcycle, which would require license, insurance, helmet, etc, even if they could be registered.  Which they can't.

They'd be fine on private land, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sisyphal said:

Anybody know if it's worth reporting stuff like this to the Police? Or would I have to end up under the wheels before they did anything?

Scary stuff, dgul's approach is the best place to start although also tweet or send it to West Midlands police who are doing great work on cycle safety i.e. nailing bad driving.

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/trafficwmp?lang=en-gb

Share this post


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

Nope.  By law they're not allowed on the pavements.  

And they're not allowed on the road (by their own admission)

I think they fall foul of multiple laws.  They are probably classed as a motorcycle, which would require license, insurance, helmet, etc, even if they could be registered.  Which they can't.

They'd be fine on private land, I suppose.

People quote 'off road' for these bikes without understanding exactly what 'off road' means.

Basically they are only legal in England and Wales on land to which the public do not have access.

Arguably, in Scotland because of their right to roam, there is no such land.

Share this post


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

Nope.  By law they're not allowed on the pavements.  

And they're not allowed on the road (by their own admission)

I think they fall foul of multiple laws.  They are probably classed as a motorcycle, which would require license, insurance, helmet, etc, even if they could be registered.  Which they can't.

They'd be fine on private land, I suppose.

Strictly speaking by law normal pedal cyclists are not allowed on the pavements.  That never stopped them and being against the law never seems to deter or be enforced now - if it ever was.  Indeed I believe enforcement has been officially relaxed to allow it for normal pedal cyclists.  That's the main reason I made the remark you highlighted - assuming it's just possible it's going to be similarly unofficially accepted if driven responsibly - the kids weren't driving them responsibly.  I think any such acceptance would be a real danger to pedestrians much more even than pedal cyclists.

Maybe you misunderstood but I wasn't saying it might happen/be a menace.  I recently saw it actually happen and a group travelling along a busy pavement "driven" by kids (each with their own one) outside a supermarket - including wheelies.  A menace to pedestrians.  Like they'd just been bought their latest toys.  

If the speed is restricted to 15 mph I believe they don't need documentation of any kind although I'm sure the ones I saw were going faster/capable of going faster than that.

It might well be illegal and maybe the kids were breaking the law but I assume they maybe thought they get away with it maybe likening it to mobility vehicles and perhaps because of their age.  Normal pedal cyclists started on the pavements a bit like that (mainly in London - now everywhere)  to get around the extreme congestion. There was no policing there to say they couldn't (and there's probably nowhere else in the near vicinity for them to use them).

 

Edited by billybong

Share this post


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

Strictly speaking by law normal pedal cyclists are not allowed on the pavements.  That never stopped them and being against the law never seems to deter or be enforced now - if it ever was.  Indeed I believe enforcement has been officially relaxed to allow it for normal pedal cyclists.  That's the main reason I made the remark you highlighted - assuming it's just possible it's going to be similarly unofficially accepted if driven responsibly - the kids weren't driving them responsibly.  I think any such acceptance would be a real danger to pedestrians much more even than pedal cyclists.

Maybe you misunderstood but I wasn't saying it might happen/be a menace.  I recently saw it actually happen and a group travelling along a busy pavement "driven" by kids (each with their own one) outside a supermarket - including wheelies.  A menace to pedestrians.  Like they'd just been bought their latest toys.  

If the speed is restricted to 15 mph I believe they don't need documentation of any kind although I'm sure the ones I saw were going faster/capable of going faster than that.

It might well be illegal and maybe the kids were breaking the law but I assume they maybe thought they get away with it maybe likening it to mobility vehicles and perhaps because of their age.  Normal pedal cyclists started on the pavements a bit like that (mainly in London - now everywhere)  to get around the extreme congestion. There was no policing there to say they couldn't (and there's probably nowhere else in the near vicinity for them to use them).

 

Nope, that only applies to motorised (electric) bicycles, and then only as an assist to pedal action.  No pedals, no assist.  IMO we're currently at a place akin to the mopeds in the 50s -- they were motorised bicycles (and had to have pedals, hence the ped), and the law recognised that they were different/special and worked around them.  

In the EU and USA there is a special category for high power electric bikes -- IMO we should have similar.  (I'd say, max power about 1kw, max speed about 30mph, license to ride (with test), 14 yr minimum age, insurance, minimum equipment levels (horn, decent integrated lights, decent brakes) and plates.  Doubt they'd need an annual MOT.  Note the current 250w 15mph electric-assist bikes should stay as they are).

Share this post


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

Nope, that only applies to motorised (electric) bicycles, and then only as an assist to pedal action.  No pedals, no assist.  IMO we're currently at a place akin to the mopeds in the 50s -- they were motorised bicycles (and had to have pedals, hence the ped), and the law recognised that they were different/special and worked around them.  

In the EU and USA there is a special category for high power electric bikes -- IMO we should have similar.  (I'd say, max power about 1kw, max speed about 30mph, license to ride (with test), 14 yr minimum age, insurance, minimum equipment levels (horn, decent integrated lights, decent brakes) and plates.  Doubt they'd need an annual MOT.  Note the current 250w 15mph electric-assist bikes should stay as they are).

I had assumed the ones I saw had some notional pedals maybe folded away even if only to comply with the law but I didn't see any pedals they were moving so fast - they looked more like small scooters rather than mopeds - travelling at speed.  Whatever the law is they were being used on busy pavements.  I believe they're very easy to obtain even Argos sells the slower smaller versions.

It seems it's not a new thing (albeit in the link below dated 2012 they were on the roads - 8 - 10 year old kids) although it's the first time I've seen them.  I'd rather not see them in pedestrian areas again - or even on the roads driven by kids.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=1132241

http://www.argos.co.uk/product/3909957?cmpid=GS001&_$ja=tsid:59156|cid:189934165|agid:18091993285|tid:aud-144400486596:pla-141052315045|crid:77627768365|nw:g|rnd:11319733043934765096|dvc:c|adp:1o3&gclid=CMaIh7uz-dICFQPgGwodbgMDmA

 

Edited by billybong

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.