Demand for cyclists number plates.

Status
Not open for further replies.
H2O said:
Indeed. But i'm assuming he mentioned that rate because it's the current lowest rate and not because it's the right moral level.

I mainly asked because I really don't see the moral problem with the current system. 'The rich' pay tax at 20% on the same money as the poor. It's only the additional money that's taxed at a higher rate.

As for the rates themselves... surely the moral argument for where they're set should be based on the needed services & the impact of the tax on the person being taxed? If so I would think the current multi level system is more moral than a one size fits all approach.
Click to expand...

I think steve leans to the "tax the sweat from the bodies of the peasant and if they can't afford bread let them eat cake" philosphy of taxation - its worth remembering that that led to a revolution and most of the aristos being "married to the widdow" (guilotine)

"Sire the peasants are revolting .... of course they are, ugly little creatures never found one i liked, oh you mean ... erm.... "
 
Mattyd said:
Look at it another way..... As soon as cars start costing an average of £350, cause about 100 deaths a year total, does not pollute, does not damage the road etc Im sure they wont need licensing, insurance and tax either.






And this is the issue most people don't get...

Number plates on cars stop people speeding.....and that's pretty much it. It only stops them because we have a rather crappy camera system set up that will catch them in the act (some of the time).

Past that, they don't stop phone use, the don't stop tailgaing, they don't stop people driving with no seat belt, or driving an unfit car, they don't stop arseholes, they dont stop red light jumping....The only thing that stops those things is police either in cars or on the streets who catch them in the act.

And its never been an issue for police to catch cyclists in the act of doing something stupid as recently proved by the London campaign where 4k cyclists and 10K motorists where fined. Had those cyclists had number plates the outcome would have been no different.
Click to expand...

ANPR cameras also prevent people from driving without tax and insurance. Number plates also make it easy for the Police to track a car in traffic, that they want to pull over etc. etc. for any of the offences you have mentioned.
You keep mentioning cars damaging roads, I passed my test almost 34yrs ago and I've never damaged a road with any of my cars or anyone else's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
nilagin said:
You keep mentioning cars damaging roads, I passed my test almost 34yrs ago and I've never damaged a road with any of my cars or anyone else's.
Click to expand...

Sadly i cant say the same, the occasion where i flipped a landrover and trailer on the M27 (which wasnt really my fault - more the pillock who changed lanes into the trailer) caused a degree of carriageway damage and put a big dent in the armco
 
H2O said:
Indeed. But i'm assuming he mentioned that rate because it's the current lowest rate and not because it's the right moral level.

I mainly asked because I really don't see the moral problem with the current system. 'The rich' pay tax at 20% on the same money as the poor. It's only the additional money that's taxed at a higher rate.

As for the rates themselves... surely the moral argument for where they're set should be based on the needed services & the impact of the tax on the person being taxed? If so I would think the current multi level system is more moral than a one size fits all approach.
Click to expand...

The additional money often makes up the majority of the income. The tax of 40% is too high. Taxing people above say 30% is theft IMHO
 
nilagin said:
ANPR cameras also prevent people from driving without tax and insurance. Number plates also make it easy for the Police to track a car in traffic, that they want to pull over etc. etc. for any of the offences you have mentioned.
You keep mentioning cars damaging roads, I passed my test almost 34yrs ago and I've never damaged a road with any of my cars or anyone else's.
Click to expand...


You damage the road simply by using it.

The tax and insurane issue I didn't mention because they do not apply to cyclists.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
The additional money often makes up the majority of the income. The tax of 40% is too high. Taxing people above say 30% is theft IMHO
Click to expand...

The additional money is all disposable income (ie not needed to live a comfortable life) & it's hardly earned when compared to many other jobs. I'm yet to see a very high earner that works harder or under more pressure than a paramedic for example. They only get large sums of money because it's economically viable, not because they deserve that much more than everyone else.

As for your 30% how do you come to that number? I understand not going over 50% so that people are working at least as much for themselves as for the state but the numbers you keep coming out with seem completely arbitrary.
 
nilagin said:
ANPR cameras also prevent people from driving without tax and insurance. Number plates also make it easy for the Police to track a car in traffic, that they want to pull over etc. etc. for any of the offences you have mentioned.
Click to expand...

And back to the OP, number plates on cars are the size they are so that ANPR cameras can read them - the British Standard was amended in 1998 and applied in law from 2001 for precisely this purpose.

Anything that you could reasonably fit to a bicycle would only be readable by Mark 1 eyeballs.
 
Cobra said:
Taking my "theory" further, you could make it legal that they did,
( I though that they were a legal requirement TBH obviously not then.)
And buy them yearly rather like a road tax :D
and or 3rd party
Insurance.
No need to thank me I'm just doing the politicians job for them :thumbs: :D


Dunno really, I've not thought it through.
I was respond to the comments that it would be impossible to fit number plates to a bike.
Click to expand...
not all bikes can run mudguards ;)
 
Musicman said:
And back to the OP, number plates on cars are the size they are so that ANPR cameras can read them - the British Standard was amended in 1998 and applied in law from 2001 for precisely this purpose.

Anything that you could reasonably fit to a bicycle would only be readable by Mark 1 eyeballs.
Click to expand...
I think you will find it is the size and the font and spacing that is regulated so it can be read by ANPR cameras., not the size of the actual plate. A motorbike sized plate could easily be fitted to a bicycle, without hindering the cyclist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Mattyd said:
You own a car that does not come in contact with the road? No wonder you avoid all that congestion caused by other road users.
Click to expand...
How do rubber tyres cause damage then?
 
nilagin said:
How do rubber tyres cause damage then?
Click to expand...

it's the weight of the force on the tyre that causes issues. lots of traffic combined with poor quality materials and weathering erodes the surface and causes damage.
 
nilagin said:
I bet they can.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where a 9" x 7" plate, which is about as small as you can legally go on a motorcycle, would fit on my Brompton folding bike without stopping it folding (and probably having to lose my rear light).
 
POAH said:
it's the weight of the force on the tyre that causes issues. lots of traffic combined with poor quality materials and weathering erodes the surface and causes damage.
Click to expand...
If that's the case , comparing my weight added to my car and with the width of my car tyres to me on a bike on 1.5" wide bike tyres, I'd be applying more weight per road surface area on a bike.
As you rightly say, damage is caused by poor road materials and sealing it. Water gets in during winter and cracks the road surface in freezing conditions. It's not the actual cars that cause the damage. Lorries and buses do however cause ruts in poorly built roads with insufficient foundation work.
The road where I lived as a kid is over 55yrs old and has never been resurfaced and doesn't need it neither. The only bits that aren't original road surface is where the road has been dug up to clear blocked drainage pipes.
 
Musicman said:
I'm not sure where a 9" x 7" plate, which is about as small as you can legally go on a motorcycle, would fit on my Brompton folding bike without stopping it folding (and probably having to lose my rear light).
Click to expand...
I bet I could make something up that could easily be fitted to the rear of the saddle that won't get in your way and could easily be folded too.
 
POAH said:
not all bikes can run mudguards ;)
Click to expand...
Well they should do, (Be made to) nasty things spraying up mad and crap all over the roads or "walkers"
on off road tracks :D
 
nilagin said:
If that's the case , comparing my weight added to my car and with the width of my car tyres to me on a bike on 1.5" wide bike tyres, I'd be applying more weight per road surface area on a bike.
Click to expand...

There is a calculation (i can dig it out) - you would be surprised how much more damaging a ton or many tons of car is vs that of bike or people on foot - its literally 100x more damaging. And i believe HGVs and the like are again 100x more damaging the cars.


nilagin said:
It's not the actual cars that cause the damage.
Click to expand...

You cant ignore that the problem is made considerably worse, considerably quicker due to heavy traffic though. 10x1000s of tons of traffic everyday does not make roads last longer.
 
nilagin said:
If that's the case , comparing my weight added to my car and with the width of my car tyres to me on a bike on 1.5" wide bike tyres, I'd be applying more weight per road surface area on a bike.
Click to expand...

As per the link I posted previously, road wear is calculated proportional to the fourth power of axle load.

See also DfT Design Manual for Roads & Bridges

http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol7/section2/hd2406.pdf

DfT said:
2.23 The structural wear to a road associated with each vehicle that passes increases significantly with increasing axle load. Although alternative methods are available, structural wear for pavement design purposes in the UK is taken as being proportional to the 4th power of the axle load, i.e:

Wear/axle ∝ L4 (L = axle load)

Thus, a 50% increase in axle load results in a five-fold increase in calculated structural wear.
Click to expand...

Average UK Male weight 83.6 Kg

Add perhaps 12 Kg for a road bike, let's round it up to 100 Kg for simplicity. So, 50 Kg per axle and establish this as our base unit.

The curb weight of the UK's best selling car in 2013, the Ford Fiesta is around 1100 Kg, spread over two axles, that's 550 Kg per axle, about 11 times more than the average bicycle.

Using the DfT formula, raising 11 to the power of 4 we get 14,641 times more structural road wear from a Ford Fiesta than the average bicycle.

For fully laden 44 tonne, six axle articulated lorry, the load is 7333 Kg per axle.

That is 611 times more than the bicycle: when raised to the 4th power, 139,368,569,041 times more wear than a cycle

Or 13.3 times more than the car: 31,599 times more structural wear than a Fiesta when raised to the 4th power.
 
Oh, and a Toyota Land Cruiser, that weighs in at 2740 Kg, causes 38.5 times more structural road wear than a Ford Fiesta. :)
 
Musicman said:
As per the link I posted previously, road wear is calculated proportional to the fourth power of axle load.

See also DfT Design Manual for Roads & Bridges

http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol7/section2/hd2406.pdf



Average UK Male weight 83.6 Kg

Add perhaps 12 Kg for a road bike, let's round it up to 100 Kg for simplicity. So, 50 Kg per axle and establish this as our base unit.

The curb weight of the UK's best selling car in 2013, the Ford Fiesta is around 1100 Kg, spread over two axles, that's 550 Kg per axle, about 11 times more than the average bicycle.

Using the DfT formula, raising 11 to the power of 4 we get 14,641 times more structural road wear from a Ford Fiesta than the average bicycle.

For fully laden 44 tonne, six axle articulated lorry, the load is 7333 Kg per axle.

That is 611 times more than the bicycle: when raised to the 4th power, 139,368,569,041 times more wear than a cycle

Or 13.3 times more than the car: 31,599 times more structural wear than a Fiesta when raised to the 4th power.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with the weight per axle formula for determining wear.
You are applying 50kg per tyre per axle that is approx. 37mm wide, where as with a car you are applying the weight to 2 much wider tyres per axle which the road surface supports better. Buses and lorries are disproportionally heavier when compared to tyre width.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Mattyd said:
You cant ignore that the problem is made considerably worse, considerably quicker due to heavy traffic though.
Click to expand...
But they are not the cause, which is what you wrongly pointing out.
 
nilagin said:
But they are not the cause, which is what you wrongly pointing out.
Click to expand...


You're being a tad pedantic :)


I'm pretty sure I said they damage the road (which they unquestionably do). I never mentioned cause as it's not the point I was making.
 
ST4 said:
Certain members of the public support it. I would say a small rear number plate is fine. I wouldn't think a front one is neccessary. Or even the cyclist to have to wear a hi vis with the mark clearly ledible all the hi vis. Just some form of identification really. After all, car drivers have their cars blighter with a plate, why shouldn't a bike or cyclist have the same issues.
Click to expand...
I imagine certain members of the public would support speed limiters on cars, should we support that too ;)
 
nilagin said:
I don't agree with the weight per axle formula for determining wear.
Click to expand...

You'll have to disagree with the people that build our roads, then.

nilagin said:
You are applying 50kg per tyre per axle that is approx. 37mm wide, where as with a car you are applying the weight to 2 much wider tyres per axle which the road surface supports better. Buses and lorries are disproportionally heavier when compared to tyre width.
Click to expand...

OK. Let's double the relative weight of the bicycle to take account of it having only two wheels and see what happens: 100 Kg per axle.

So the car has 5.5 x more per axle loading. 5.5 ^4 = 915 times more road wear.

But I just realised that's without a driver, so add our average male at 83.6 Kg. 593.15 Kg per axle: 1237 times more wear.

Either way, it's several orders of magnitude less.

And umpteen orders of magnitude greater wear for a heavy lorry.
 
jakeblu said:
I imagine certain members of the public would support speed limiters on cars, should we support that too ;)
Click to expand...


Very off topic now... But often wondered if there are any arguments against this proposal?

Seems to work for hgvs, some small and large vans.
 
Musicman said:
Oh, and a Toyota Land Cruiser, that weighs in at 2740 Kg, causes 38.5 times more structural road wear than a Ford Fiesta. :)
Click to expand...

Good to know. I'll be very confident I am leaving a mark in mine :)
 
jakeblu said:
I imagine certain members of the public would support speed limiters on cars, should we support that too ;)
Click to expand...

Maybe. It's been mooted for a while. I wouldn't set the car limit at 70 but no more than 85. However I'd want the cyclists with anpr friendly plates for sure. I'd also like to see dog licensing, child restrictions and alcohol licensing on a per person baud brought in. If you're caught being drunk in public and being a menace you get disqualified from drinking for a period. Works with motorists and trust me, banned drivers do comply on a whole, I know loads.
 
ST4 said:
Maybe. It's been mooted for a while. I wouldn't set the car limit at 70 but no more than 85. However I'd want the cyclists with anpr friendly plates for sure. I'd also like to see dog licensing, child restrictions and alcohol licensing on a per person baud brought in. If you're caught being drunk in public and being a menace you get disqualified from drinking for a period. Works with motorists and trust me, banned drivers do comply on a whole, I know loads.
Click to expand...
Wow you are a bundle of laughs, or is that not allowed either? I would prefer less government control..

Perhaps this makes you feel better :)
 
big soft moose said:
Except that the poor are paying Vat on things they have to have like food , and clothing ... its only a choice for the rich who have money to blow on luxuries.

No offence but you are suffering from ivory tower syndrome , like a lot of wealthy people you have no idea what its like to be poor - maybe you should try living on £72.40 for everything except housing for a week and see how easy it is (and that doesnt include the fact that many poor people are in private rental housing where the rent exceeds the housing benefit)
Click to expand...

That's the base amount, add working tax credits, other benefits and you about double that. Know how to work the system and you get significantly more. Been there, done that, seen the abuses, don't want to do it again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Byker28i said:
That's the base amount, add working tax credits, other benefits and you about double that. Know how to work the system and you get significantly more. Been there, done that, seen the abuses, don't want to do it again.
Click to expand...
And not just that Vat is not there on food, well not unless you only buy the more expensive processed food where "value" has been added.
 
Just like speed limits, drunks are already dealt with in the law. All I am saying is that we don't need more laws and tightening off it. Nothing wrong with enforcing the current ones. Then again I'm more liberal minded and a firm believer that actually loosening those laws will have a more improved effect with increased sustainability.

Cyclist number plates is just a big pile of nonsense and truly serves no purpose whatsoever.

The problem is us ourselves. Change in attitude needs to come from ourselves and that is where it begins. Not dictated by some bureaucratic machine.
 
Try going into Glasgow city centre at night. The yobbishness is unreal all those drunks and they make public transport awful for others. So much so some in my team who do the late shift drive in as they're scared of going in the buses. British society unlike continental European society has proven it cannot be trusted with cheap alcohol and late night drinking.
 
ST4 said:
Maybe. It's been mooted for a while. I wouldn't set the car limit at 70 but no more than 85. However I'd want the cyclists with anpr friendly plates for sure. I'd also like to see dog licensing, child restrictions and alcohol licensing on a per person baud brought in. If you're caught being drunk in public and being a menace you get disqualified from drinking for a period. Works with motorists and trust me, banned drivers do comply on a whole, I know loads.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a serious point I was making but rather a flippant one :)
Anyway its not so much speeding motorists on the motorways that are the problem but those that speed in residential areas and speed limiters wouldn't solve that problem.
dejongj said:
The problem is us ourselves. Change in attitude needs to come from ourselves and that is where it begins. Not dictated by some bureaucratic machine.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately it often takes legislation to change our attitudes.
Byker28i said:
That's the base amount, add working tax credits, other benefits and you about double that. Know how to work the system and you get significantly more. Been there, done that, seen the abuses, don't want to do it again.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know, its a shame that the government has to subsidise those employers who don't pay a decent wage. Personally, I believe that if your company needs a government subsidy to pay your employees then you really ought not be in business.
 
We been condition to belief that. Very few people speak up nowadays, pick up other people's rubbish etc. we've been so conditioned that it is always someone else's problem to sort out. Even to the extend of our own children. I find it quite sad.

But most idiot is this belief to give our money to the government to then at great cost distribute for less. And people really belief it is a good thing and want more of it. Madness if you ask me b
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
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...

I suggest you come to the New Forest especially tomorrow and witness what will be going on at the latest cycle event where behaviour seems to indicate that they are diliberately causing an obstruction and the torrent of abuse ( only the other day shouted at "Get out of the ---- way , you -----= ------just one example) After a few miles of this such an opinion will become based on fact and not some "pre exisring arrogance" I don't ride a horse but in my experience most riders thank you for slowing down so I am more kindly disposed towards them
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top