| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Bike number plates mooted
Apparently, the Mayor is now in favour of bike user/vehicle
registration, and wants a private bill put through Parliament to achieve this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5225346.stm I definitely have mixed feelings about this. I disagree with the guy from British Cycling who says a "tiny minority of cyclists" are flouting road regulations - in my reasonably frequent cycling experience, I reckon about half of cyclists go past me through red lights, and as a pedestrian I come across people cycling on non-shared-use pavements nearly every day. On the other hand, I agree with the RAC guy who says we need to encourage cycling rather than putting people off. I'm inclined to believe that the benefits of registration (easier enforcement, less anti-social cycling) would be outweighed by the disbenefits (people put off cycling because of the hassle factor). Then again, we've had this discussion on u.t.l many times before. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Bike number plates mooted
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
This is totally Dagenham (several stops beyond Barking) is if not Upminster. It's also Ken reverting to New Labour control freakery to a degree I didn't believe him capable of. He *has* changed since he was first elected! It would decimate cycling in London, not to mention making life impossible for cyclists like me who bring their bikes in on the train from Cambridge. We certainly won't be doing anything so dotty in Cambridge because we actually know we have to promote sustainable transport. The alternative is total gridlock. Well said, Colin. It would also be entirely impractical unless it were a national implementation. For example, how would they be able to regulate those of us who (like yourself) take a bike on the train into London but then cycle from one terminus to another before heading out of London to our destination (in my case, in from Metroland and out of King's Cross to Peterborough - perhaps Ken would prefer me to clog up the Metropolitan line by taking my bike right through to KX, in order to avoid the need to license it?). |
Bike number plates mooted
Jack Taylor wrote: Colin Rosenstiel wrote: This is totally Dagenham (several stops beyond Barking) is if not Upminster. It's also Ken reverting to New Labour control freakery to a degree I didn't believe him capable of. He *has* changed since he was first elected! It would decimate cycling in London, not to mention making life impossible for cyclists like me who bring their bikes in on the train from Cambridge. We certainly won't be doing anything so dotty in Cambridge because we actually know we have to promote sustainable transport. The alternative is total gridlock. Well said, Colin. It would also be entirely impractical unless it were a national implementation. For example, how would they be able to regulate those of us who (like yourself) take a bike on the train into London but then cycle from one terminus to another before heading out of London to our destination (in my case, in from Metroland and out of King's Cross to Peterborough - perhaps Ken would prefer me to clog up the Metropolitan line by taking my bike right through to KX, in order to avoid the need to license it?). It would be totally impractical to enforce, just how many bicycles are there in the London area that would be affected? Anyone can buy a bicycle from anywhere without need to register it. It would require and Act of Parliament to make it legal and such a thing would never be passed. Neill |
Bike number plates mooted
|
Bike number plates mooted
Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article . com, (Neillw001) wrote: Jack Taylor wrote: [Ken's bike lunacy] It would be totally impractical to enforce, just how many bicycles are there in the London area that would be affected? Anyone can buy a bicycle from anywhere without need to register it. It would require and Act of Parliament to make it legal and such a thing would never be passed. Ken is talking of a Private Bill, something London has every year. But it could well fall foul of the Parliamentary procedures because of its effect on people outside London. -- Colin Rosenstiel Colin, I understand what you say about impracticality of "local" legally-enforced bike registration; i.e. it would have to be national or nothing. But, does Cambridge University not still have a mandatory College resistration system for students' bicycles? I remember my number - Q283, from all those years ago! I'm not sure what the sanction was for failing to register and/or display one's number. Moreover, all resident Members of the University were required to obtain the Motor Proctor's written consent before having motor vehicle in the City. I wonder whether that still applies.? Marc. |
Bike number plates mooted
wrote in message
: Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article . com, (Neillw001) wrote: Jack Taylor wrote: [Ken's bike lunacy] It would be totally impractical to enforce, just how many bicycles are there in the London area that would be affected? Anyone can buy a bicycle from anywhere without need to register it. It would require an Act of Parliament to make it legal and such a thing would never be passed. Why. If there was a political will, it would happen. I don't know why it wasn't enacted several decades ago: any vehicle on the road needs to obey the Highway Code and needs to be identifiable if it fails to do so. Ken is talking of a Private Bill, something London has every year. But it could well fall foul of the Parliamentary procedures because of its effect on people outside London. Colin, I understand what you say about impracticality of "local" legally-enforced bike registration; i.e. it would have to be national or nothing. As a cyclist (as well as a car driver) I'd wholeheartedly support a national bicycle registration scheme with a requirement to display clearly-identifiable number plates front and back that could be read by police or traffic-light cameras. It's rare to see cars go through red traffic lights (I see maybe one every couple of months) whereas almost every day I see cyclists ride straight through lights as if they don't apply to cyclists - and this is at any time in the phase of the lights, not just at the very start or end of the red phase. Presumably the thought of being identified and nicked is a great deterrent for car drivers and the absence of this for cyclists makes them think they can get away with it... which they can :-( Likewise for cyclists who drive full-tilt at zebra crossings with loads of people on, scattering them in their wake - I saw this in Oxford while I was out cycling: a nutter cyclist overtook me as I was slowing down for the zebra and rode straight at a group of tourists on the crossing, scattering them in panic. Luckily a police car was passing and pulled the cyclist over, but had the police not witnessed it, there was no registration number that I could have reported to the police. I believe that road traffic offences committed while cycling don't count towards penalty points on a car licence: I'd like to see this change too. |
Bike number plates mooted
Martin Underwood wrote:
I believe that road traffic offences committed while cycling don't count towards penalty points on a car licence: I'd like to see this change too. So how would that apply to those of us who don't have, never have had and never intend to have a full driving licence? |
Bike number plates mooted - like Washington DC
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message ... Apparently, the Mayor is now in favour of bike user/vehicle registration, and wants a private bill put through Parliament to achieve this. I see from the Times of Friday 28th July that Ken Livingstone is proposing that bikes, and their owners, be required to be registered. I can live with that. I used to live in Washington DC, which had at least thirteen registration schemes in various parts of the metropolitan area. The schemes usually arose from "Yes Minister" type reasoning: "We've got to do something. This is something, so we've got to do it." The usual trigger was bike thefts. It was generally agreed by the powers that be that assigning a policeman or two to catch a few bike thieves was not worthwhile, and registration seemed to be the only other way of actually appearing to be doing something. The leader in bike registrations was the city of Takoma Park, just to the north of the District of Columbia. Picture the Muswell Hill of the Washington area. Takoma Park was involved with four registration schemes, although any particular cyclist only had to deal with three, city, county and state - the city straddles the border between two counties. Maryland's state scheme was voluntary, and in fact has since been abolished on the grounds of general uselessness. The county scheme was compulsory, at least Montgomery County's was. Prince George's County, and the city's own scheme, I don't know about. Bureaucratic arrangements for the different schemes round Washington varied. Information about the registered bikes was kept on everything from the State Department of Motor Vehicles car registration databases to card indexes at police stations. Arrangements for proving that the bike was actually yours to register, rather than a stolen bike, also varied. For Montgomery County, where I lived, arrangements were fairly informal. I had a scheme, which I, alas, was never able to carry out, to discover the serial number of the bike belonging to the County's Chief Executive, so I could register the bike in my name, not his. Arrangements for demonstrating that the bike had been registered also varied. Most common was a little sticker, to stick on the bike's frame, slightly bigger than the stickers that bikes sometimes carry here, to indicate their owner's club affiliation. Some jurisdictions punched numbers into the bottom bracket, rather in the way that postcoding is done here. Just as many cyclists here avoid postcoding, because of possible damage to the bottom bracket bearings, so they did in Washington, even when it was compulsory. Arlington, Virginia, I think it was, issued little metal number plates, not very visible from far off, that were supposed to be fixed to the bike's back rack. What the requirements were for those bikes that did not have a back rack, or mudguards, I am not sure. The bike club here, Audax UK, has a long running and proverbial dispute about whether and when bikes on Audax rides should be required to have mudguards. If Ken Livingstone joins in that, it will add a whole new dimension to the amusement. With car registration in the USA, reciprocity between states was not achieved until sometime in the 1920s. Before then, a car crossing a state border had to have an extra car registration, and an extra set of number plates. For bikes there is no formal arrangement yet, although some jurisdictions did write rules on the subject when introducing their registration requirements. The rules were somewhat academic, I suppose, since, in practice, nobody knew what those rules were for any particular part of the Washington area, and any particular kind of visitor. Ken Livingstone will have to consider the subject of visitors, and tell us what the requirements will be for those cyclists coming over the border from Staines, or Watford or Epping or Dartford. Will they have to get a temporary pass? Will there be a grace period? Will the Tour de France riders have to be registered, or Dutch tourists? Will a bike have to be registered if it is merely on a train, rather than in the street? In addition to registering, bikes, there is the question of registering riders. American police all seem to have a standard procedure to go through when stopping vehicles. The procedures were all undoubtedly drawn up by people who assumed that all vehicles were motor vehicles. Fairly early in any script comes the request to see the driving licence. Of course I, on principle, never carried my drivers licence when riding a bike, they being irrelevant when your vehicle is not a motor vehicle. At the point when the script broke down, and there was no set procedure, I could actually talk to the policeman as one human being to another. If London introduced a quasi drivers licence for cyclists, presumably one would have five days to show it at a police station, and I suppose that you could make such a procedure compulsory for five year old children, as well as adults. You would have to make suitable arrangements for the non Londoners, for example by requiring the children from Watford to carry their passports. In practice, of course, just as enforcing the rules against riding on the pavement gets a lower priority than stopping terrorism or armed robbery, so enforcing the bike registration laws got a lower priority than the riding-on-the-pavement laws. The registration laws, and their utility in hassling people, are, however, very useful for keeping people out of the "wrong" neighbourhoods, especially for discouraging poor black children from exploring rich white neighbourhoods. It will be interesting to see how Ken Livingstone's scheme develops Jeremy Parker |
Bike number plates mooted
Jack Taylor wrote in message
: Martin Underwood wrote: I believe that road traffic offences committed while cycling don't count towards penalty points on a car licence: I'd like to see this change too. So how would that apply to those of us who don't have, never have had and never intend to have a full driving licence? If you haven't got a driving licence, you can't get points on it - although maybe the law might be framed such that if you subsequently got a driving licence within the time that the points would have appeared on a licence (if you'd had one), the licence would be issued with those points already applied to it ;-) Maybe one day, if bike number-plates ever become law, the next discussion might be about requiring a driving licence to ride a bike on the road, with points applied to it for offences committed either while riding a bike or driving a car. But let's overcome one hurdle at a time! It pains me to see cyclists get away with committing offences for which car drivers would be punished, and the comparatively small number of bad cyclists blackening the name of all other cyclists (like me) who abide by the same rules and "drive" to the same standard when cycling as when driving - including stopping at every red traffic light and occupied zebra crossing, and not overtaking cars on the left in a queue of traffic especially approaching a left turn. |
Bike number plates mooted
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message ... Apparently, the Mayor is now in favour of bike user/vehicle registration, and wants a private bill put through Parliament to achieve this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5225346.stm I definitely have mixed feelings about this. I disagree with the guy from British Cycling who says a "tiny minority of cyclists" are flouting road regulations - in my reasonably frequent cycling experience, I reckon about half of cyclists go past me through red lights, and as a pedestrian I come across people cycling on non-shared-use pavements nearly every day. Yes, it isn't a tiny minority. I'd even say it's a majority. But I don't understand why everyone agrees that jumping lights is such a terrible thing for cyclists. Is there not an argument to be made that different rules do apply and *ought* to apply to cyclists, simply because cyclists are making life or death decisions every second they are on the road. If you follow the Highway Code to the last letter while driving a car, the consequences of another road user making a mistake are sometimes but very rarely fatal. When I'm driving, I don't always slow down to check whether someone is jumping their red light as I approach my green light. I don't always glance to the right behind me when turning left, to check if someone might cut me off as they try to make a left turn. When I'm cycling, I do these checks 100% of the time, because if I didn't I would have been killed several times by now. Following the Highway Code to the letter does not protect me in the same way as it protects a car driver. So what I'm saying is that cyclists are checking if the coast is clear all the time, regardless of whether a green light or the rules tell them it's safe or not. Their reasoning is that the green light is useless to them - they need to double-check regardless - so why should they be bound by a red light, when they can see that it's perfectly safe for them to cross. And if you force cyclists to follow the letter of the law in all situations (thereby telling them that their own safety is no longer in their own hands), I think the actual accident statistics would increase. j |
Bike number plates mooted
Martin Underwood wrote: Why. If there was a political will, it would happen. I don't know why it wasn't enacted several decades ago: any vehicle on the road needs to obey the Highway Code and needs to be identifiable if it fails to do so. Bicycles arn't road vehicles. They just happened to be used on the road by most owners. YOu can ride them in parks, in fields , up hills , wherever its allowed. In fact its debatable whether they are vehicles at all given they don't have engines. If you say they are then perhaps we should call push scooters and skateboards vehicles too? No? Why not? As a cyclist (as well as a car driver) I'd wholeheartedly support a national bicycle registration scheme with a requirement to display clearly-identifiable number plates front and back that could be read by police or traffic-light cameras. It's rare to see cars go through red I think you might find yourself in the minority there. You can just imagine some bored plod or traffic warden giving some poor cyclist a ticket for some minor infraction just as happens with cars today. Can't see cycling lasting long if that happens. they can :-( Likewise for cyclists who drive full-tilt at zebra crossings with loads of people on, scattering them in their wake - I saw this in And you think license plates would stop this? You think these people would even bother to register? Whats to stop people who don't? How will the police catch them if they head off down an alleyway, call in the helicopter? Be realistic. Theres a simple way of dealing with idiots like that because I've done it. I was crossing a pedestrian crossing about 6 months back on a green man and saw a courier cyclist heading across my path but I just carried on walking whereas she presumably expected me to stop. I made sure she clipped me and she was sent flying badly grazing her arms. Tough. I believe that road traffic offences committed while cycling don't count towards penalty points on a car licence: I'd like to see this change too. Don't be an ass. A lot of people cycle because they don't drive. B2003 |
Bike number plates mooted
|
Bike number plates mooted
|
Bike number plates mooted
Jim wrote in message
: "Dave Arquati" wrote in message ... Apparently, the Mayor is now in favour of bike user/vehicle registration, and wants a private bill put through Parliament to achieve this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5225346.stm I definitely have mixed feelings about this. I disagree with the guy from British Cycling who says a "tiny minority of cyclists" are flouting road regulations - in my reasonably frequent cycling experience, I reckon about half of cyclists go past me through red lights, and as a pedestrian I come across people cycling on non-shared-use pavements nearly every day. Yes, it isn't a tiny minority. I'd even say it's a majority. But I don't understand why everyone agrees that jumping lights is such a terrible thing for cyclists. Is there not an argument to be made that different rules do apply and *ought* to apply to cyclists, simply because cyclists are making life or death decisions every second they are on the road. No, no and thrice no! I disagree in the strongest terms that different rules should apply to cyclists. You seem to be saying that because cyclists are more vulnerable if they make a mistake (and *maybe* are more vigilant because of this) they should be exempt from obeying traffic lights. I'm an advanced driver and therefore maybe am more vigilant - should I also be exempt from obeying parts of the Highway Code? A cyclist who jumps the lights and hits or is hit by a car who has a green light doesn't even carry third-party insurance to cover the damage that he causes to the car. |
Bike number plates mooted
Martin Underwood wrote:
It pains me to see cyclists get away with committing offences for which car drivers would be punished, and the comparatively small number of bad cyclists blackening the name of all other cyclists (like me) who abide by the same rules and "drive" to the same standard when cycling as when driving - including stopping at every red traffic light and occupied zebra crossing, and not overtaking cars on the left in a queue of traffic especially approaching a left turn. I agree with you 150% - but then, even in my 40s, I must be regarded as "old school". I try and follow the same rules cycling as I would if I were driving, I respect crossings and traffic lights, don't overtake on the inside, when there is other traffic around I indicate (to avoid any confusion), I carry lights and a fluorescent vest, take heed of one-way regulations etc etc ad infinitum. There are a couple of areas where I'm possibly not "to the letter". On pathways (as distinct from a footpath adjoining a road) I will sometimes cycle but, if approaching a pedestrian, I slow down until I am certain that they are aware of my presence (especially when approaching from behind - I'll wait for them however long it takes). This, despite what it says in the Highway Code, is a grey area now, with many police forces even (in my opinion, wrongly) encouraging cyclists to use the footpath for *their* own safety, even when it's alongside a road. As a pedestrian I know what it's like when a cycle suddenly hurtles past you from behind, at speed. My other transgression is that, if I'm approaching a roundabout or corner intending to turn right, I will normally centre myself in the marked approach lane, rather than keep strictly left, purely for my own safety - from past experience too many motorists force their way past and it can be intimidating and dangerous. We are actually promoting cycling here in a major way in the next few years and I am very seriously considering becoming a registered cycle trainer. Most cyclists behave in a stupid manner simply because nobody has explained to them (and they have not thought about) the dangers of being on the road, to both themselves and pedestrians. It's a shame that there is no longer an effective (preferably compulsory) basic proficiency test for cyclists. In my day it was carried out on a painted route on a school playground and the principles of it have always been firmly embedded in my mind when I'm out on the open road. It's time that it was taken more seriously again. Even if a licence is not made nationally compulsory there should be a requirement to hold some form of certificate of competence (perhaps a three level one - bronze, silver or gold, to represent basic, intermediate or advanced levels, with the basic level being compulsory and the others optional). |
Bike number plates mooted
Jim wrote:
So what I'm saying is that cyclists are checking if the coast is clear all the time, Are you serious? You might, I might and Martin might - but I would venture that we are very much in the minority these days. It's quite terrifying watching the behaviour of some of our fellow cyclists (mind you, it's equally terrifying watching some of the suicidal antics of our motorised brethren in their upholstered roller skates!). |
Bike number plates mooted
Theres a simple way of dealing with idiots like that
because I've done it. I was crossing a pedestrian crossing about 6 months back on a green man and saw a courier cyclist heading across my path but I just carried on walking whereas she presumably expected me to stop. I made sure she clipped me and she was sent flying badly grazing her arms. Tough. I witnessed a cyclist ride at a woman pushing a pram across a zebra crossing when I was at university in Bristol (Bristolians may know Blackboy Hill, a long road on a downward gradient, crossed by zebra crossings every so often). Without lessening his speed, he swerved to avoid the pram and clipped the central refuge bollard, and went flying. As he got up, he was swearing at the woman for "daring" to cross on a zebra crossing. At one point I thought I'd have to intervene because he looked as if he was going to hit her, but my mate, a great big burly guy, "had a word with him" and he lost interest in this! These are the worst incidents you can both conjure up after a lifetime on the roads spent, I suspect, in eager observation. I wonder if there is really a serious problem to be fixed here, apart from a sense of jealousy that people are getting away with breaking the rules. j |
Bike number plates mooted
" wrote:
Colin, I understand what you say about impracticality of "local" legally-enforced bike registration; i.e. it would have to be national or nothing. Why? The congestion charge applies to any vehicle entering central London no matter where in the UK they're from. I don't see legally why it couldn't be possible to legislate that anyone operating a bicycle in Greater London must register so long as it were reasonable easy for people from outside London to register, perhaps have an office at each mainline terminus where you could register and obtain a plate or be able to order a plate to be sent through the post. I know there's not a hope of Ken getting this through, but as a pedestrian who walks from Cannon Street to Clerkenwell and back every working day and sees cyclists riding on pavements and through red lights every such day, I'd love to see it happen. -- Roy |
Bike number plates mooted
Jim wrote:
Theres a simple way of dealing with idiots like that because I've done it. I was crossing a pedestrian crossing about 6 months back on a green man and saw a courier cyclist heading across my path but I just carried on walking whereas she presumably expected me to stop. I made sure she clipped me and she was sent flying badly grazing her arms. Tough. I witnessed a cyclist ride at a woman pushing a pram across a zebra crossing when I was at university in Bristol (Bristolians may know Blackboy Hill, a long road on a downward gradient, crossed by zebra crossings every so often). Without lessening his speed, he swerved to avoid the pram and clipped the central refuge bollard, and went flying. As he got up, he was swearing at the woman for "daring" to cross on a zebra crossing. At one point I thought I'd have to intervene because he looked as if he was going to hit her, but my mate, a great big burly guy, "had a word with him" and he lost interest in this! These are the worst incidents you can both conjure up after a lifetime on the roads spent, I suspect, in eager observation. I wonder if there is really a serious problem to be fixed here, apart from a sense of jealousy that people are getting away with breaking the rules. This is the impression I get. The expense and hassle of a bike registration scheme are very unlikely to bring significant benefits, even in terms of casualty reduction. Although traffic offences by cyclists are commonplace, the magnitude of the consequences is almost always far lower - generally annoying rather than life-threatening. I'm sure someone will pop up to say that a cyclist almost killed them, but the statistics just don't support this as a common thing - of the 210 pedestrians hit by cycles in the whole of 2004 in the whole of Great Britain, 1 was killed and 42 were seriously injured [1]. [1] Road Casualties Great Britain 2004 (DfT), table 23. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Bike number plates mooted - like Washington DC
Jeremy Parker wrote:
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message ... Apparently, the Mayor is now in favour of bike user/vehicle registration, and wants a private bill put through Parliament to achieve this. I see from the Times of Friday 28th July that Ken Livingstone is proposing that bikes, and their owners, be required to be registered. I can live with that. I used to live in Washington DC, which had at least thirteen registration schemes in various parts of the metropolitan area. (snip fascinating reading on US experiences of bike registration) The complicated nature of the schemes you describe seems to demonstrate the futility of such a scheme here. One of the key problems seems to be that registration of bikes doesn't in itself actually achieve anything (other than some statistics about bike owners). The goal here is to reduce traffic offences by cyclists. The preferred method is to catch offending cyclists and punish them. There are two ways to achieve this - manually (by having police or traffic wardens out and about catching them) or automatically (using cameras). Ken seems to want bike registration plates so that cameras can catch bikes automatically, but the question is, how large does a plate have to be to be visible for this, and where are we going to put it? I really don't think the expense of the scheme would be worth the benefit in reduced offences, especially when it is likely to put people off cycling. A similar argument has been waged in Australia where helmets are mandatory in some places - such a law may put people off cycling, which in turn may lead to higher accident rates as fewer cycles on the road leads to a lower awareness by other road users. The long-term health benefits of cycling are also an important consideration, especially when more and more people are likely to suffer from illnesses such as heart disease. Another point mentioned in the US scenarios is that some people just won't bother to register. The "worst" offenders are those least likely to register and therefore stand just as little chance of being caught as they do now. My opinion is that a "soft" publicity-based campaign against antisocial cycling would be far more effective. It wouldn't put people off cycling (and could even be designed to encourage it by highlighting how you have a lot of control over your own safety, a factor which puts many people off cycling) and would be far more cost-effective. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Bike number plates mooted
In article . com,
() wrote: Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article . com, (Neillw001) wrote: Jack Taylor wrote: [Ken's bike lunacy] It would be totally impractical to enforce, just how many bicycles are there in the London area that would be affected? Anyone can buy a bicycle from anywhere without need to register it. It would require an Act of Parliament to make it legal and such a thing would never be passed. Ken is talking of a Private Bill, something London has every year. But it could well fall foul of the Parliamentary procedures because of its effect on people outside London. Colin, I understand what you say about impracticality of "local" legally-enforced bike registration; i.e. it would have to be national or nothing. But, does Cambridge University not still have a mandatory College resistration system for students' bicycles? I remember my number - Q283, from all those years ago! I'm not sure what the sanction was for failing to register and/or display one's number. The system exists but it seems to be more use for recovering stolen bikes than anything else. The numbers are not remotely visible on CCTV either. Moreover, all resident Members of the University were required to obtain the Motor Proctor's written consent before having motor vehicle in the City. I wonder whether that still applies.? It seems to me that fewer students cycle these days despite motor controls which continue as strongly as ever, now backed by the Planning Authority and applied to ARU and private education-linked housing too. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Bike number plates mooted - like Washington DC
Dave Arquati wrote:
Jeremy Parker wrote: "Dave Arquati" wrote in message ... Apparently, the Mayor is now in favour of bike user/vehicle registration, and wants a private bill put through Parliament to achieve this. I see from the Times of Friday 28th July that Ken Livingstone is proposing that bikes, and their owners, be required to be registered. I can live with that. I can't. The whole idea is completely ridiculous. But then I'm strongly against biometric ID cards too. The issue is both cases is the same - a desire by the state to inconvenience everyone so that law enforcement is easier. Absolute identity is unnecessary for law enforcement. It is only necessary to establish identity between the offender and the defendant for each offence. (snip fascinating reading on US experiences of bike registration) The complicated nature of the schemes you describe seems to demonstrate the futility of such a scheme here. One of the key problems seems to be that registration of bikes doesn't in itself actually achieve anything (other than some statistics about bike owners). The goal here is to reduce traffic offences by cyclists. The preferred method is to catch offending cyclists and punish them. There are two ways to achieve this - manually (by having police or traffic wardens out and about catching them) or automatically (using cameras). All registration would achieve is diverting police effort from enforcing real offences to enforcing compliance with registration. Police priorities are not always well-chosen, but on the whole they realise that red light jumping by cyclists is not worthy of as much effort as red light jumping by motorists, for example. Would anyone care to argue that motoring offences are at an acceptably low level? Enforcement of speed and red lights is still treated as a game, with a slap on the wrist if you are dozy enough not to spot a bright yellow camera. Elsewhere, 90% of drivers treat speed limits as advisory. The idea would not achieve its objectives, and would dramatically reduce cycling if enforced effectively - just like that other half-baked anti-cycling idea, compulsory cycle helmets. If Ken genuinely wants to reduce pavement cycling and red light jumping by cyclists, he will: - install Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs) for cyclists at all traffic lights - fund National Standards cycle training for all children, all adult cyclists who want it, and all cyclists caught committing an offence - exempt cyclists from all one ways unless signs specifically say otherwise - stop councils building off-road cycle 'facilities' where the road is perfectly OK to cycle on, or could be made so with lower traffic speeds - employ many more traffic policeman, and give them these priorities, in this order: -- wrongly registered and uninsured motor vehicles -- all forms of dangerous driving, especially where it endangers cyclists or pedestrians -- universal compliance with speed limits -- use of mobile phones while driving -- red and amber light jumping -- violation of ASLs -- once compliance on these is largely achieved, and only then, they can get heavy about cyclists' offences. This programme would achieve a more cycle-friendly road network, and cyclists capable of using it responsibly and safely. With more responsible cyclists, the irresponsible ones will stand out, and maybe the media will stop the nonsense that cyclists should be criticised as a class rather than for their own individual actions. My opinion is that a "soft" publicity-based campaign against antisocial cycling would be far more effective. It wouldn't put people off cycling (and could even be designed to encourage it by highlighting how you have a lot of control over your own safety, a factor which puts many people off cycling) and would be far more cost-effective. Agree totally. It is barely possible that Ken's threat is meant to be part of this. Colin McKenzie -- On average in Britain, you're more likely to get a head injury walking a mile than cycling it. So why aren't we all exhorted to wear walking helmets? |
Bike number plates mooted
JRS: In article
, dated Sat, 29 Jul 2006 10:38:00 remote, seen in news:uk.transport.london, Colin Rosenstiel posted : In article . com, (Neillw001) wrote: Jack Taylor wrote: [Ken's bike lunacy] It would be totally impractical to enforce, just how many bicycles are there in the London area that would be affected? Anyone can buy a bicycle from anywhere without need to register it. It would require and Act of Parliament to make it legal and such a thing would never be passed. Ken is talking of a Private Bill, something London has every year. But it could well fall foul of the Parliamentary procedures because of its effect on people outside London. It has no effect on people outside London. It does have an effect on outsiders who enter London, temporarily or permanently - just the same as British law applies in Britain, Scottish Law applies ... . If Cambridge decides also to require registration and number plates, the Council will have to determine whether London plates are to be valid in Cambridge, and /vice versa/. And, AIUI, according to present regulations, Councillors with any interest in or knowledge of the situation will be unable to participate. Does that also apply to Mayors, for example of London? -- © John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. © Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms PAS EXE etc : URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/ - see 00index.htm Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc. |
Bike number plates mooted
Martin Underwood wrote: Boltar wrote in message If you say they are then perhaps we should call push scooters and skateboards vehicles too? No? Why not? As soon as a vehicle uses the road, it becomes a road vehicle for the time that it is on the road. Well I don't consider a bicycle a vehicle. IMO a vehicle is something that is self propelled. A bicycle does not fall into this category any more than roller skates do. If you wish to take the line that *anything* on the road should be licensed then I await the fun and games when pedestrians have to hang a license plate around their necks when they cross the road and horses have to have one tied to their tails. Don't be an ass. A lot of people cycle because they don't drive. And they shouldn't have points on their non-existent licence, although such points should be held in reserve in case the person gets a licence later (within the validity period of the points). But if they *do* have a licence, cycling offences (on the road) should constitue endorsable points on it. Aside from the fact that this is not going to be the slightest deterrent to a cyclist who has no intention of ever getting a car license all they'd have to do would be to get a license based on a different address if they did want to get an unendorsed license. Unless you want to link it to NI or similar in which case its hello George Orwell. B2003 |
Bike number plates mooted
|
Bike number plates mooted
On 30 Jul 2006 09:56:58 -0700, "Boltar"
wrote: should be licensed then I await the fun and games when pedestrians have to hang a license plate around their necks when they cross the road and Can you really imagine any politician suggesting that Britons should have to carry government registration documents with them at all times when out in public? Oh, hang on... -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Bike number plates mooted
On 29 Jul 2006 04:08:49 -0700, "
wrote: But, does Cambridge University not still have a mandatory College resistration system for students' bicycles? I remember my number - Q283, from all those years ago! I'm not sure what the sanction was for failing to register and/or display one's number. Yes it does (I'm told), and I've no idea what the penalty is, or even if the situation ever arises. In My Day, the only practical use of the numbers seemed to be for returning stolen/lost/abandoned/homeless bikes. Most people applied them with Tippex or similar, so this probably isn't what the Mayor had in mind. Someone I knew at Cambridge got sent a police(?) letter regarding a fine for cycling without lights, and made an official declaration that he knew nothing about it all - he reckons a foreign student we knew who was a bit of a prat must have been stopped and then given his name, just before going home! Moreover, all resident Members of the University were required to obtain the Motor Proctor's written consent before having motor vehicle in the City. I wonder whether that still applies.? Yes. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Bike number plates mooted
|
Bike number plates mooted
"Arthur Figgis" ] wrote in message
... On 29 Jul 2006 04:08:49 -0700, " wrote: But, does Cambridge University not still have a mandatory College resistration system for students' bicycles? I remember my number - Q283, from all those years ago! I'm not sure what the sanction was for failing to register and/or display one's number. Yes it does (I'm told), and I've no idea what the penalty is, or even if the situation ever arises. In my day the fine for most offences was six shillings and eight pence. More severe offences warranted thirteen shillings and four pence. Moreover, all resident Members of the University were required to obtain the Motor Proctor's written consent before having motor vehicle in the City. I wonder whether that still applies.? Yes. http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/p...tor/index.html and page 196 of http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/so_ch02.pdf (covers motor vehicles & cycles) -- David Biddulph |
Bike number plates mooted
Dave Arquati wrote:
I'm sure someone will pop up to say that a cyclist almost killed them, but the statistics just don't support this as a common thing - of the 210 pedestrians hit by cycles in the whole of 2004 in the whole of Great Britain, 1 was killed and 42 were seriously injured [1]. With the increase in fuel costs, parking charges, the higher congestion charge, people not wanting to use public transport (cost, safety post 7/7, heat, multiple changes etc) and higher costs of parking your car at a rail station (so you cycle to the station, or get a folder so you can use it at the other end too) and many other reasons, the use of bikes has rocketed and in London it now looks like Amsterdam or Cambridge. However, these recent bikers have no road sense at all, even if they've come out of their car to take to two wheels. The cycle network is a joke too, meaning you quickly come to realise it's better (and often safer) to take to the road than use lanes that can put you in serious danger. It's rather worrying that many cyclists believe they are legally allowed to go through red lights, which explains why I'd put it at about 70-80% jumping lights in London, from crossings (where the pedestrians would come off worse) to junctions (where cyclists will come off worse). Going on the pavement at speed is another problem. Go along Embankment in the morning or after 5pm to see how close some of them come to having an accident. People can take sudden turns (e.g. a tourist stepping back to take a photo) and no cyclist can predict that or react in time. I'd be interested to see what the figures are in 2005 and 2006. I doubt many pedestrians will be killed by a cyclist, but I bet injuries will rocket and they don't have to be life threatening (and therefore recorded) to give some innocent victim a seriously bad day, from cuts and bruises to other relatively minor injuries or damage to property being carried. More cyclists will be injured too. In areas where the vast majority flout the law, pedestrians are quite literally hitting back. I've witnessed three cyclists being thrown off their bikes on a pelican crossing, and the verbal abuse towards them is increasing too. It's only a matter of time until someone is killed (cyclist or pedestrian) not because of a collision but because of 'bike rage'. You can also see that the cyclists that do abide by the law seem to annoy those that don't, if being stopped hinders their progress. To keep on topic, a registration system isn't workable. You just need to have more cops issuing expensive on-the-spot penalties to those that don't care, combined with proper education to tell those who really don't know, what the rules actually are. Maybe Ken should push for more REAL police rather than the plastic ones that stand around without any power to do jack s**t! Jonathan |
Bike number plates mooted - like Washington DC
Dave Arquati wrote:
There are two ways to enforce this - manually (by having police or traffic wardens out and about catching them) or automatically (using cameras). Ken seems to want bike registration plates so that cameras can catch bikes automatically More police is the *only* answer. If you think you'll be stopped and given an £80-100 on the spot fine, you might reconsider (if not then you might after paying hundreds of pounds by getting done repeatedly). CCTV would fail for so many reasons it's not even worth considering (fake plates, unreadable plates, simply not displaying a plate because you know there are no police officers out there to force you to, the huge cost for what isn't perceived as a big problem). My opinion is that a "soft" publicity-based campaign against antisocial cycling would be far more effective. Yes, combined with the increased number of police officers being proactive (and obviously performing other duties at the same time). Forget CSO's unless they're given more effective powers. Jonathan |
Bike number plates mooted
In article , Martin
Underwood writes police or traffic-light cameras. It's rare to see cars go through red traffic lights (I see maybe one every couple of months) That's odd. I used to see motorists drive through red at virtually every junction on my commute to work from Fulham to the West End. Every day. whereas almost every day I see cyclists ride straight through lights as if they don't apply to cyclists I saw plenty of those too. -- congokid Eating out in London? Read my tips... http://congokid.com |
Bike number plates mooted
congokid wrote:
police or traffic-light cameras. It's rare to see cars go through red traffic lights (I see maybe one every couple of months) That's odd. I used to see motorists drive through red at virtually every junction on my commute to work from Fulham to the West End. Every day. Yes, I have to say that at a junction you will see people accelerate on amber (even though there's nobody behind them) or jump red. However, you may get one car or perhaps two but after that, it sorts itself out. This is why red light cameras are such a good idea, but surprisingly rare compared to speed cameras. When it comes to cyclists, they go through red at any time. Even if the lights have been red for 10-20 seconds, and this is what makes it so much more dangerous especially for pedestrians. Cyclists will also ride the wrong way on a one way street (so a pedestrian may not even look, although common sense says you should) which a car would only do by mistake in 99.9% cases I'm sure. Cyclists will also turn left/right on a straight ahead only junction, which again puts pedestrians at risk. A car must give way to a pedestrian when turning into a side road.. you try crossing if a bike is coming your way (at best you'll be called a blind c**t, at worst they'll try and clip you). So, while a car jumping lights may well be far more dangerous IF they hit you, I think on the whole it's the cyclist that is more likely to come into contact with a pedestrian. You can usually tell if a car isn't going to stop, while a cyclist will often slow but then go ahead anyway. If a car is braking (i.e. the car is dipping) I'd say it's unheard of for them to suddenly accelerate through you as a bike would/does. For anyone not clear, I am talking about London (inner and outer) and hope it isn't like this throughout the UK. If it is, god help us all and how did we allow it to get like this? Jonathan |
Bike number plates mooted
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:20:27 +0100, "David Biddulph"
wrote: "Arthur Figgis" ] wrote in message .. . On 29 Jul 2006 04:08:49 -0700, " wrote: But, does Cambridge University not still have a mandatory College resistration system for students' bicycles? I remember my number - Q283, from all those years ago! I'm not sure what the sanction was for failing to register and/or display one's number. Yes it does (I'm told), and I've no idea what the penalty is, or even if the situation ever arises. In my day the fine for most offences was six shillings and eight pence. More severe offences warranted thirteen shillings and four pence. It probably still is! A sign once went up warning us of a GBP25 fine for removing books from the college library without signing them out. Someone (*cough*) wrote "But how will you know?" on the bottom. The next day someone else had added "That's not the point, you moral reprobate". (Quite a few of us spotted that it was cheaper to pay 3-4 years of weekly overdue book fines than actually buy the books) FWIW, when I put the radio on tonight I got the tail end of something about a student last century who noticed that while he wasn't allowed a car in the city, the rules said nothing about aeroplanes. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Bike number plates mooted - like Washington DC
Colin McKenzie wrote:
Would anyone care to argue that motoring offences are at an acceptably low level? Enforcement of speed and red lights is still treated as a game, with a slap on the wrist if you are dozy enough not to spot a bright yellow camera. Elsewhere, 90% of drivers treat speed limits as advisory. The speed argument is silly though. It's been turned into a major issue because there's technology on the cheap to enforce it; in fact, there's cheap technology that makes it profitable to enforce it. It fails to recognise that speed is a minor cause of accidents, even if it /can/ have a more serious effect when one happens. It fails to catch those who are not qualified to drive, drunk, under the influence of drugs, on their phone, not up to standard etc. Real police enforce these things, but are rapidly disappearing in favour of cameras on the one hand, and CSOs on the other. I've just driven from England to Sweden, via France, Belgium, Holland, Germany and Denmark. Most countries now have a speed limit of 130kph, with Germany having their infamous autobahns that carry 1/3rd of all traffic, yet have just 6% of all accidents. Most roads are just two lanes, yet it's quite easy to do 120-130kph or even a GPS-verified 202kph (in a diesel Mondeo!) on the open stretches. It's totally legal, and amazingly the only complaints in Germany are down to the environmental cost, not the brainwashed message we have that 'speed kills'. If I did 125mph in the UK, I'd be considered to be on the same level as Saddam Hussein. Do it in Germany, and the most hassle I'll get is having to pull in to allow a Porsche through wanting to do 300kph! Even Sweden with 'vision zero' is experimenting with an increased limit to 130kph from 110kph! I saw one potential road rage incident in Germany, but otherwise motorists are far more tolerant than a British motorist will ever be. The problem in the UK is the quality of driving which seems to be terrible and getting worse (even though new drivers have a far more thorough test than we ever did). Speeding can be enforced easily, but the policy in the last 10 years of reducing many limits from 70 to 50 (supplemented by cameras) isn't working. Fatalities have remained almost constant (give or take 100 here and there) suggesting speed cameras aren't working either. In fact, it seems to prove only how many people must be speeding and on the fact that most people speeding aren't killing anyone! Jonathan |
Bike number plates mooted - like Washington DC
Jonathan Morris wrote:
Colin McKenzie wrote: Would anyone care to argue that motoring offences are at an acceptably low level? Enforcement of speed and red lights is still treated as a game, with a slap on the wrist if you are dozy enough not to spot a bright yellow camera. Elsewhere, 90% of drivers treat speed limits as advisory. The speed argument is silly though. It's been turned into a major issue because there's technology on the cheap to enforce it; in fact, there's cheap technology that makes it profitable to enforce it. It fails to recognise that speed is a minor cause of accidents, even if it /can/ have a more serious effect when one happens. No, it is important, in producing a more cycle-friendly and pedestrian-friendly road system. A couple of illustrations. An elderly pedestrian wants to cross a road where sightlines are not too good. She starts crossing when no traffic is in sight. The faster the traffic, the more likely it is that a motor vehicle will arrive before she finishes crossing. A cyclist at 15mph is approached from behind by a car. The road isn't wide enough to overtake safely, though there's just room to squeeze past. If the car is going at 40 mph, the closing speed is double what it is at 27.5. The driver at 40 has to think twice as fast, and slow down twice as much to wait for a safe place to overtake. Which do you think is more likely to barge past anyway, and which will be more frightening when it does? It fails to catch those who are not qualified to drive, drunk, under the influence of drugs, on their phone, not up to standard etc. Real police enforce these things, but are rapidly disappearing in favour of cameras on the one hand, and CSOs on the other. Of course. See my other points. The problem in the UK is the quality of driving which seems to be terrible and getting worse (even though new drivers have a far more thorough test than we ever did). Speeding can be enforced easily, but the policy in the last 10 years of reducing many limits from 70 to 50 (supplemented by cameras) isn't working. Fatalities have remained almost constant (give or take 100 here and there) suggesting speed cameras aren't working either. In fact, it seems to prove only how many people must be speeding and on the fact that most people speeding aren't killing anyone! You have a point, but the issue is complicated and a lot of things are going on. Speed cameras and lower limits on dual carriageways do reduce speeds where they are used - but the limits are still above the level at which pedestrians are likely to die in collisions. Another factor not often mentioned is airbags - a rarity 10 years ago, now in most cars. Where are the lives these have saved? In both cases, interventions that should save lives are apparently not affecting overall fatalities. So are they pointless, or would we be worse off without them? Don't forget that traffic levels continue to rise - maybe per journey safety is improving at the same rate. In general drivers compensate for safety improvements by taking more risks. Over time, this appears to have transferred risk from users of enclosed vehicles to pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists. Colin McKenzie -- On average in Britain, you're more likely to get a head injury walking a mile than cycling it. So why aren't we all exhorted to wear walking helmets? |
Bike number plates mooted
|
Bike number plates mooted
|
Bike number plates mooted
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:42 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk