Demand for cyclists number plates.

Status
Not open for further replies.
ghoti said:
I don't believe you're old enough to have a driving licence.
Click to expand...

Believe what you like. I will do all I can this 20 plenty b******t and cycling craze get stopped in their tracks.
 
ghoti said:
Like I said. I wouldn't stop leisure driving. Just increase insurance for it.

There's no requirement to drive at the speed limit. You drive to conditions. Which includes those you share the road with. The idea that you're being "held up" by cyclists comes from the arrogance that pre-exists in many drivers and leads them to think the roads are just for motor vehicles. Other than motorways, they're not.
Click to expand...

Please do stay away from politics. We have enough lunatics already up there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
I get overtaken by cyclists all the time in Bristol, as it is now largely 20 limits. I then catch up with some of them at the lights. Others treat traffic lights as give ways, as they are two wheeled pedestrians, as well as "legitimate road users", so I don't catch up with them.

There is no way I would cycle to work, it's 9 miles up and down hills. A colleague who is a super keen cyclist, doesn't own a car and goes out on all day serious rides at the weekend cycles 3 miles each way for work, but even she admits she'd take the bus if it was much further. I am sufficiently aware of my own limitations as a cyclist to know that if there was a test before you were allowed to ride on the road, I would fail - for one thing, if I take a hand off the handlebars to indicate, I veer in the same direction or fall off. There isn't a test so I can be a terrible cyclist and a danger to myself and others with impunity - however since I try to avoid doing things that have a high possibility of causing me serious injury due to my own ineptitude, I don't.


ghoti said:
We should make driving in general hugely more difficult and expensive. Vast insurance hikes if you want to use your car for anything other than work or domestic necessity. Make leisure driving cripplingly expensive for most. Have severe penalties for driving offences. Including three-strikes style permanent bans for minor offences like speeding, alongside fines. And far more instant life-bans and prison sentences for dangerous or reckless driving.
Click to expand...
Insurance pricing is based on risk, not policy of pressure groups. If a political party wants to increase the cost of of driving then the need to set out a policy on how they will achieve it. The obvious ways are tax on fuel and VED. Since the government is not the provider of third party insurance, it cannot influence the price other than by taxing insurance (which they already do : Insurance premium tax). Since insurance is already a crippling cost for many, taxing it into oblivion would just increase the number of uninsured drivers. Increase fuel and VED would just hit those commuting to relatively low paid jobs the most. I could afford it. Someone on NMW probably couldn't.

Dangerous driving does carry non-trivial prison sentences and they are frequently handed out along with lengthy bans.

Obviously since the UK has a large motor industry, even though the majority of cars built here are in factories by brands based overseas, and leads the world in motorsport engineering development which brings a large amount of money into the coffers of the government through taxation - it is not by accident that the Austrian F1 team Red Bull racing is based in well known Austrian town of Milton Keynes, for example - dramatically increasing the cost of motor vehicle use would make sound economic and polticial sense.
 
ghoti said:
.

We should also have 20mph limits in all built up areas. I was actually petitioning for this recently.
Click to expand...
I don't see the point, most of the streets where I live are 20mph zones and I think I'm the only one sticks to the speed limit. Well I was going to say me and those behind me but on more than one occasion I've been overtaken :(
 
ghoti said:
Like I said. I wouldn't stop leisure driving. Just increase insurance for it.

There's no requirement to drive at the speed limit. You drive to conditions. Which includes those you share the road with. The idea that you're being "held up" by cyclists comes from the arrogance that pre-exists in many drivers and leads them to think the roads are just for motor vehicles. Other than motorways, they're not.
Click to expand...

Right. OK. I hope you don't have family that live far away from you - It could get expensive visiting them!

So I guess you must leave 3 hours early to work then incase you get held up by a pedestrian in the middle of the road (Or cyclepath)? And I sincerely hope you don't cycle above 20mph "on the street".

I don't have a problem with cyclists. I know they have a right to be there, that said, cycling down a dual carriageway at night with no lights isn't the best idea (thankfully lane 2 was clear, otherwise it would have been messy). Although as I mentioned the ones who cycle 3 abreast really do annoy me, especially considering the fact that a stones throw away from us are 2 lovely forest with nice new cycle paths.

Personally I think that push bikes should be banned from fast (40mph+) A roads, nothing more than dangerous, leads to impatient drivers doing stupid things that put themselves and the cyclists into danger. There are plenty of nice backroads, cycle paths and footpaths to choose from so why cycle in the gutter of an A road with artic lorries flying past at twice your speed?

Yes, the roads were originally for horses and push bikes, but that was when the land speed record was 40mph, and cars were something that most people had not seen. Time moves on - and so should the road system.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
onomatopoeia said:
I get overtaken by cyclists all the time in Bristol, as it is now largely 20 limits. I then catch up with some of them at the lights. Others treat traffic lights as give ways, as they are two wheeled pedestrians, as well as "legitimate road users", so I don't catch up with them.
Click to expand...

Just buy a much bigger car / truck / lorry so the hippies can't overtake, or better move out to a more friendly and better behaved city. You'll almost certainly get better weather too.
 
daugirdas said:
In what way is it healthy to cycle in heavy traffic choking on my diesel particulate exhaust fumes? I bet my ride inside a car to work is far healthier unless you cycle on a segregated cycle path in a countryside.
Click to expand...

You could be wrong about that

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...air-pollution-cars-experiment-suggests-133129

Study by Healthy Air Campaign, Kings College London and Camden Council measured air pollution for a variety of modes of transport.

Those who travel by car can experience five times higher pollution levels than those who cycle, and three and a half times more than those walking, according to an experiment by academics and campaigners.

…

The reason those travelling in cars experience much greater fumes is the exhaust from other vehicles enters from in front and behind and, once there, doesn’t disperse.
Click to expand...

And also about this

Any other form of cycling should in fact be outlawed.
Click to expand...
 
Bernie174 said:
If you draconian penalties for drivers, which I agree with you on although for possibly different reasons, then its only right you should impose those on other road users.
Pedestrians and cyclists can be as bigger danger as drivers, it's only right therefore they should be subject to equally harsh measures when they cause problems.
Click to expand...


If you really believe that then you are certifiable as far as I am concerned.
I used to think that you were a bit barmy, but you are the whole nine yards as they say.
 
frank said:
Comedy on the ITV news tonight, a demand that cyclists get number plates or some sort of ID so bad cyclists can be traced. Jeez they won't stop at traffic lights or put lights on their bike at night, what chance is there of a registration system for pushbikes.
Click to expand...

The Sussex Police & Crime Commissioner in that piece, Katy Bourne, admits to having no clue how it would work, or even what it is that she's proposing.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...s-id-for-cyclists-but-cant-explain-why-or-how

Meanwhile, in neighbouring Kent, their Police Commissioner is under investigation for driving with no insurance after a crash in her car

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-29553185
 
ghoti said:
Because it's healthier, for individuals and for the environment.


The system as it works elsewhere allows for the demonstration of clear fault on the part of the injured. If fault can't be demonstrated, the less vulnerable party should be held liable. In situations where you are in control of a machine that is potentially dangerous to the more vulnerable individuals you share a space with; you should err very much on the side of caution.

We should also have 20mph limits in all built up areas. I was actually petitioning for this recently.
Click to expand...

No. If you operate in areas where you are more vulnerable it's up to you to ensure you stay safe. It's your life, not theirs. Take some ownership to protect it.
 
ST4 said:
No. If you operate in areas where you are more vulnerable it's up to you to ensure you stay safe. It's your life, not theirs. Take some ownership to protect it.
Click to expand...
Thankfully the law disagrees with this kind of not-terribly-intelligent reasoning, and is slowly moving in the general direction of disagreeing with it even more strongly.

Of course, cyclists should take reasonable measures to remain visible (lights in poor visibility conditions, hi-vis on roads during the day). But that's to help drivers - the less vulnerable party - adjust their behaviour accordingly.

Cars should also use thick hi-vis tape or paint along their sides and on the hood. As they - especially silver, grey, white and black cars - can blend into the city landscape in the peripheral vision; even during the day. That's another thing we're pushing for along with compulsory 20mph limits in built up areas. It would make hi-vis modifications compulsory for cyclists and drivers.
 
Mattyd said:
But cycling is safe
Click to expand...

Really? I'll be sure to tell that to my uncle when he's out of hospital and recovered from the (not minor) head injuries he sustained on a short trip to the local shop. (no cars involved)
 
neil_g said:
more details required.

ive hurt myself while walking, wouldnt really call it dangerous though.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
Of course you can get hurt cycling. That doesn't necessarily make it dangerous. You can get hurt making a cake. Every year a number of people die while climbing out of the bath.
 
ghoti said:
Thankfully the law disagrees with this kind of not-terribly-intelligent reasoning, and is slowly moving in the general direction of disagreeing with it even more strongly.

Of course, cyclists should take reasonable measures to remain visible (lights in poor visibility conditions, hi-vis on roads during the day). But that's to help drivers - the less vulnerable party - adjust their behaviour accordingly.

Cars should also use thick hi-vis tape or paint along their sides and on the hood. As they - especially silver, grey, white and black cars - can blend into the city landscape in the peripheral vision; even during the day. That's another thing we're pushing for along with compulsory 20mph limits in built up areas. It would make hi-vis modifications compulsory for cyclists and drivers.
Click to expand...

Why isn't it intelligent. All I'm doing is advocating some personal responsibility.

There's no way I'd want to vandalise my car with hi vis. It's got head lights and despite being silver is clearly visible.

People that are vulnerable need to take responsibility for themselves and look out. It may mean not running red lights.
 
neil_g said:
more details required.

ive hurt myself while walking, wouldnt really call it dangerous though.
Click to expand...

Things don't have to be considered dangerous to not be safe, they're two ends of a spectrum. Everything includes risks depending on how you go about it. Personally i think if everyone was on bikes the general stupidy levels would be the same... so still lots of accidents.

I can't give you details about what happened because as far as i know he doesn't remember exactly what happened. He was found unconsious by the side of the road.

I crashed my bike years ago though, a small misjudgement & i carried slightly too much speed on a down hill corner, hit a curb, & flipped over the handlebars. I couldn't bend my right knee for weeks after and still have a nice scar.
 
Last edited:
H2O said:
Things don't have to be considered dangerous to not be safe, they're two ends of a spectrum. Everything includes risks depending on how you go about it. Personally i think if everyone was on bikes the general stupidy levels would be the same... so still lots of accidents.

I can't give you details about what happened because as far as i know he doesn't remember exactly what happened. He was found unconsious by the side of the road.

I crashed my bike years ago though, carried slightly too much speed on a down hill corner, hit a curb, & flipped over the handlebars. I couldn't bend my right knee for weeks after and still have a nice scar.
Click to expand...
out of interest was he wearing a helmet?

yes everything carries an element of risk, depending on how you go about it. but for the most part accidents are rare (ignoring input from 3rd parties, i.e. cars) and far from unsafe.
 
Ghoti

Please read what I said, not what you want me to say.

I said

"Pedestrians and cyclists can be as bigger danger as drivers"

I then went onto say that there is a mismatch in reporting and 'blame', and I explained why.

How you then come to your conclusions I don't know, but we can only assume it's an attack simply because you don't have anything that justifies you claim, and your tenuous evidence just bit the dust.

So, to return back to the real world. Bike swerves in a road, causes car to swerve hitting a bus stop, killing the woman standing there. Can't happen? It did.

Pedestrian runs out into the road, while drunk. Trouble is the road is the M4 spur to Heathrow. Collected by a lorry, lorry in trying to avoid pedestrian, hits a car, serious injury to passenger. Pedestrian killed.. Can't happen? Oh, wait a minute it did.

As I said, pedestrians and cyclists can be as bigger danger as cars. DfT stats are rubbish, always have been always will be.

Sorry, but until you can come up with some evidence that supports you point of view, thats real evidence personal experience or numbers that are accurate, come from the Police Officers who investigated, not Home Office/DfT massaged numbers, your point is dead in the water.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
ghoti said:
But that's to help drivers - the less vulnerable party - adjust their behaviour accordingly.
Click to expand...

I've always behaved exactly the opposite to this on a personal level. The more vulnerable i feel the more care i take.

I always take care to look out for cyclists & pedestrians but i do find their behaviour very stupid at times considering their vulnerability.

Eg, night time, no pavement, national limit country road, passing pedestrians wearing only dark colours walking with their backs to the traffic flow. I've seen this many times.

neil_g said:
out of interest was he wearing a helmet?
Click to expand...

I don't think so & that's another major problem. Despite the evidence & education there are still very large numbers of cyclists who don't think wearing helmets & safety gear is safer/ worthwhile.


Ultimately it's not the mode of transport that is the problem. It's the attidues and abilities of the people using them. As far as i'm concerned assuming fault as advocated by ghoti will just make this worse.
 
Last edited:
H2O said:
I don't think so & that's another major problem. Despite the evidence & education there are still very large numbers of cyclists who don't think wearing helmets & safety gear is safer/ worthwhile.


Ultimately it's not the mode of transport that is the problem. It's the attidues and abilities of the people using them.
Click to expand...
agreed.

hopefully if there is anything good to come out of his accident it will be to change his attitude. i hope he makes a speedy recovery :)
 
Some interesting statistics

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figures.aspx

Cyclist Casualties, 20131
Child Adult All
Killed 6 103 109
Seriously Injured 276 2,867 3,143
Slightly Injured 1,676 14,510 16,186
Total 1,958 17,480 19,438

...but about 16% of fatal or serious cyclist accidents reported to the police do not involve a collision with another vehicle, but are caused by the rider losing control of their bicycle.

In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the most common key contributory factor recorded by the police is 'failed to look properly' by either the driver or rider, especially at junctions. 'Failed to look properly' was attributed to the car driver in 57% of serious collisions and to the cyclist in 43% of serious collisions at junctions.

The second most common contributory factor attributed to cyclists was 'cyclist entering the road from the pavement' (including when a cyclist crosses the road at a pedestrian crossing), which was recorded in about 20% serious collisions (and over one third of serious collisions involving child cyclists).
 
Or simply tattoo the registration number on your bum. And some of us will have plenty of room for that going by what I do get to see.

DeafCyclists_zpsc9be736c.jpg~original
 
neil_g said:
agreed.

hopefully if there is anything good to come out of his accident it will be to change his attitude. i hope he makes a speedy recovery :)
Click to expand...

Thanks, he seems to be through the worst of it now. :)
 
H2O said:
I don't think so & that's another major problem. Despite the evidence & education there are still very large numbers of cyclists who don't think wearing helmets & safety gear is safer/ worthwhile.
Click to expand...

The problem is that, while there may be plenty of anecdotal evidence, the statistics don't provide a clear and compelling case that helmets on their own improve safety.

If cycling without a helmet is, of itself and setting aside other factors, a more dangerous activity, how do you account for the fact that the Netherlands has one of the lowest proportions of cyclists who wear helmets in the world (0.5 %), yet also has the lowest rate of deaths and injuries for cyclists (9 fatalities per billion km cycled in NL vs 21 per billion km in the UK where helmet use is around 40%, for example)?

Surprise! In the Netherlands, those who cyclists who wear helmets are far more likely to be injured than those who do not - 13.3 percent of cyclists admitted to hospital were wearing helmets when they were injured. So, in Holland, at least, wearing a helmet appears to make you 26 times more likely to suffer an injury than the average.

This, is, of course, because the vast majority Dutch cyclists are riding round town, making 25% of all their journeys by bike, 35% in urban areas. Dutch urban planners have spend the last 40 years redesigning their streets to be safer for cyclists and pedestrians by reducing car speeds and generally removing points of conflict between cycle riders and other modes of transport, making it safe for unaccompanied 8 year olds through to 80 year olds to continue cycle regularly (cycling amongst Dutch over 65s doubled between 2000 and 2010).

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search/label/older people

Those Dutch people who wear helmets are almost all sports cyclists; road and mountain bikers who are putting themselves at far greater risk of injury. There is even a possibility that wearing a helmet encourages them to take greater risks in compensation for their greater perceived safety, since the number of deaths in official UCI sports cycling events nearly doubled since helmets were made mandatory in 2003.

In either case, this relates to sports cycling, which as already noted, is very different to urban cycling for transport. The take home message is that cycling need not be a dangerous activity without a helmet. If the road infrastructure is designed properly, it is perfectly possible to be very safe without them.
 
ghoti said:
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Deaths and "serious" injuries caused by cyclists or pedestrians go unreported?
As I said. Risible.
Click to expand...

mostly they get reported as car accidents - some idiot parent doesnt teach their kids to cross the road safely, kid runs out in front of a motorist and bump - obviously musrt be the drivers fault

remember if you hit me at thirty i'll live , but if you hit me at forty i'll die ... and if you werent on the road in the first place the issue wouldnt arrise
 
neil_g said:
And this would work how? As bicycles do not have unique numbers ala cars VIN.
Click to expand...

Bikes like cameras do have series numbers somewhere. Or do you believe everything from cameras to big screen televisions all don't have unique ID numbers, and that it is only cars that do? :-)
 
Major Eazy said:
Bikes like cameras do have series numbers somewhere. Or do you believe everything from cameras to big screen televisions all don't have unique ID numbers, and that it is only cars that do? :)
Click to expand...
go back and read what i followed that up with.

there is no uniform, cross manufacture unique numbering scheme. whats to say some manufactures serial numbers dont clash and it would not be unheard of for a serial number scheme for a manufacture to hit a certain number and then recycle.
 
neil_g said:
go back and read what i followed that up with.

there is no uniform, cross manufacture unique numbering scheme. whats to say some manufactures serial numbers dont clash and it would not be unheard of for a serial number scheme for a manufacture to hit a certain number and then recycle.
Click to expand...

Really? I was not aware of that.

Well then use SmartWater.
 
big soft moose said:
mostly they get reported as car accidents - some idiot parent doesnt teach their kids to cross the road safely, kid runs out in front of a motorist and bump - obviously musrt be the drivers fault
Click to expand...

Highway Code, Rule 205

"There is a risk of pedestrians, especially children, stepping unexpectedly into the road. You should drive with the safety of children in mind at a speed suitable for the conditions."

Rule 207

"Particularly vulnerable pedestrians. These include:

children and older pedestrians who may not be able to judge your speed and could step into the road in front of you. At 40 mph (64 km/h) your vehicle will probably kill any pedestrians it hits. At 20 mph (32 km/h) there is only a 1 in 20 chance of the pedestrian being killed. So kill your speed"
 
Musicman said:
Surprise! In the Netherlands, those who cyclists who wear helmets are far more likely to be injured than those who do not - 13.3 percent of cyclists admitted to hospital were wearing helmets when they were injured. So, in Holland, at least, wearing a helmet appears to make you 26 times more likely to suffer an injury than the average.
Click to expand...

A perfect example of the problem with statistics.

A helmet will help minimise injury in the event of a crash. It doesn't do anything to prevent the crash though.

So, it could be that the culture is so different there that general commuting users (cars & bikes) are far more careful and have less issues. That could mean that a higher proportion of hospital admissions comes from other sources such as mountain bikers who wear more protective gear because of the increased risk of what they are doing.
 
Last edited:
Musicman said:
Did you read the rest of my post?
Click to expand...

Not till after i posted. :p

however, i still take issue with this,

The take home message is that cycling need not be a dangerous activity without a helmet. If the road infrastructure is designed properly, it is perfectly possible to be very safe without them.

There is no hardship in using a helmet and in the case i mentioned in my first post it's very unlikely any design or planning changes would have made a difference. A helmet however, may well have prevented most of the injuries.
 
ST4 said:
Why is road fund paying traffic getting penalised over traffic that doesn't pay for the roads?
Click to expand...

1 ) Road Fund was introduced in 1920 and ceased being hypothecated for building and maintenance of roads after 1936. It hasn't existed at all since 1955.

2) Today, you pay Vehicle Excise Duty, which is calculated on the CO2 emissions of your vehicle.

3) If you have a zero or low emissions vehicle, you pay no VED.

4) My bicycle produces zero CO2 emissions.

5) I also pay VED for my car, which it is impossible for me to be using when I'm riding my bike.
 
Last edited:
Musicman said:
4) My bicycle produces zero CO2 emissions.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, but a bike is powered by the person using it and depending on what they've eaten recently they may have quite toxic emissions. :p

Musicman said:
5) I also pay VED for my car, which it is impossible for me to be using when I'm riding my bike.
Click to expand...

While your other points are valid this one isn't. A second car or motorbike still requires VED despite the owner only being able to use one at a time.
 
H2O said:
While your other points are valid this one isn't. A second car or motorbike still requires VED despite the owner only being able to use one at a time.
Click to expand...

That is true. It is nevertheless a reasonable response to people who complain that cyclists "pay no road tax". If the concern is that the person on a bike has made no contribution, most cyclists in the UK will also be VED paying car owners.

Are they equally offended by someone driving a 1968 Aston Martin, which is exempt from VED?

Besides, everyone (regardless of whether or not they're drivers, cyclists, or whatever) pays for building and maintenance of roads through general taxation (DfT/Highways Agency maintained roads) and local council tax (non DfT maintained roads). VED is largely a red herring.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top