So, who will fund the proposed bicycle license?

Cyclists?

What counts as a bicycle?

A non-motorised vehicle with one or more wheel(s) making contact with the
ground.

Where would you put such a license plate so it can be
read?

In the same places as required on a motorcycle.

Especially at the top end, bikes are more a fluid collection of parts than a
static assembly.

The same could be said of certain motor vehicles.



At the low end, any cost of licensing could almost double the cost of the
bike.

I doubt it, but in any event, so what?

And what good would it do? You don't know who was riding any particular
bike, even less so than you do with a car (and it is hard enough getting
anything done even when there has been injury and witnesses).

The system works reasonably well for cars etc: the registered keeper must
nominate the driver (cyclist) or else it is assumed that he is the driver
(cyclist).

So in response to the original poster, there is the UseNet 'there, there!',
cup of tea and sympathy. We don't so that sort of thing and don't condone it
either but your proposed 'solution' is ill thought out, unworkable and
disproportionate.


That's your opinion, and not necessarily a matter of fact.

Marc.

On 16 Oct 2004, Silas Denyer wrote:

I think [...]

Damn! The subject made me think this thread was going to be about Critical
Mass ...

tom

--
I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson.

Solar Penguin opined the following...
Hmmm... I don't accept the premise of this thought experiment because I
don't accept that this is an "Either/Or" situation. (E.g. How do we
know that Biggus and Tribus aren't already allied against Smallium?)
And anyway, pedestrians would be in the position of Tribus, not
Smallium -- we've got the least to defend ourselves with out of any of
the three groups! Heck at least cyclists are armed with bikes.
Pedestrians don't even get a blunt mango to harm other road users with!

Actually, the last time I hit a pedestrian (The only time in fact) I
came off far worse. He got knocked sideways and was up (and apologising)
by them time I had come to a halt. The problem with bikes is that the
person attached to it usually has to lose more speed before coming to a
standstill and has more chance of ending up tangled in the wreckage.

The analogy was daft, but by extension, so is the bizarre premise that
we should deal with the problem that is easier to solve rather than the
one which is the biggest threat.

A (possibly) better one; You have a high-power rifle. Running towards
you are a hungry looking lion and a small domestic cat. Given enough
time and some bad luck on your part the small cat could kill you. The
lion definately will. Which one do you try and shoot?

Let's face it. It's not going to be the cat is it? Yet you advocate
shooting the cat, because it'll die with the first shot even though the
lion poses a Plucks figure from air 3000 times greater threat to you.

Is there anyone on u.r.c. who condones cycling on pavements and through
red lights? Probably not. Is there anyone there who honestly believes
that effective action against such offenders would have any noticeable
effect on the KSI stats for our roads? Probably not. Given the choice
(Assume that it is unavoidable) of being hit by a cyclist (~95kg @
15mph) or a car (~1500kg @ 30mph) which would you choose? Can you not
see why we might find such trolling patently ridiculous or do you need
more time to think about it?

Jon

--- Jon Senior said:

A (possibly) better one; You have a high-power rifle. Running towards
you are a hungry looking lion and a small domestic cat. Given enough
time and some bad luck on your part the small cat could kill you. The
lion definately will. Which one do you try and shoot?


Once again, why is this an "Either/Or" situation? Why can't I use the
cat as bait to trap the lion, killing them both at once? Two birds with
one stone, that sort of thing.

This is the question that I've been asking since my very first post in
this thread. And it's the one question that the cyclists have been
refusing to answer each time I ask it.

If I don't get an answer this time, I'm just gonna killfile this whole
thread, because there's no point even trying to discuss things sensibly
with people who aren't even prepared to answer a simple question.

On 16 Oct 2004 17:31:31 GMT, Adrian wrote:

Ian Smith ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

And how many would you consider acceptable? How many pedestrians per
annum do you think are expendable?

Well, society believes about 11 per day, since it doesn't cause any
outcry.

Can we at least get the numbers right?

11 x 365 = roughly the total number of road deaths.
Try 774 ped deaths last year - of which around 60% were over the legal
blood-alcohol level for driving.

In other words - around 11 sober pedestrians killed on the roads *per
fortnight*...

What the hell has sobriety got to do with it? Fortunately this isn't
America or Saudi Arabia and you're perfectly within your rights to
walk home drunk as a lord and not get run over.

On 16 Oct 2004 17:31:31 GMT, Adrian wrote:
Ian Smith ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

And how many would you consider acceptable? How many pedestrians per
annum do you think are expendable?

Well, society believes about 11 per day, since it doesn't cause any
outcry.

Can we at least get the numbers right?

Can we indicate where we specified 11 a day was sober pedestrians?
Society clearly thinks 11 fatalities a day is acceptable.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 16 Oct 2004 17:32:42 GMT, Adrian wrote:
davek ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

How many pedestrians die annually from being hit by cyclists? How many
die from being hit by cars?

How wide is a car? How wide is a bicycle?

Much more than one two-hundredth as wide.
Is this line of questioning going anywhere?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Tony Raven wrote:
ningi wrote:


Well, cars don't jump red lights with anything like the frequency that
bikes do in London, so perhaps it does.


Only because the first driver who stops for the red light blocks all
those behind him, who would if they could, from jumping the light. Even
then and with very few traffic lights equipped with cameras, ~10,000
motorists a months are being caught in London by red light cameras.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3723726.stm


Tony

Well, my experience of cycling from Waterloo to Bank several times a
week is that at least 75% of cyclists go straight through red lights.
If the same numbers applied to cars, then 75% of the time, a car
arriving at a red light should jump it. This isn't even remotely the
case. I can't actually remember when I last saw a car jump a red,
whereas I find it a rarity when I see a cyclist, other than me, who
stopped for one.

Pete

On 16 Oct 2004 05:58:53 -0700, (Silas Denyer)
wrote in message :

I think there will shortly be a significant backlash against cyclists,
from *all* sections of the community.

LOL! Been living in a hole the last few years, have you?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 15:28:53 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
wrote in message
:

Anyway what is the right word? Where you start by solving the problems
that you *are* able to solve instead of wasting your time trying to
solve the ones that can't be solved until later? Whatever it's called,
that's what I was thinking of.

Er, "cop-out?" "victimisation?" "scapegoating?"

Every example I can think of from Pareto analysis down to ACPO
guidelines focuses on the highest risk and greatest potential for
lifesaving first. Cyclists are not even on the radar. Hence the
official Government guidance to Plod not even to use fixed penalty
notices unless the cyclist is behaving recklessly.

This is mainly a recognition that most pavement cycling is more a
response motorist behaviour than a deliberate and flagrant act of
lawlessness.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University