Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
pete.i

Cyclists

Featured Posts

17 minutes ago, Jerra said:

A point I have not yet mentioned with regard to pedestrians is CCTV and facial recognition software cyclists on the other hand aren't (at speed) keeping their heads up in a normal walking position and I don't think the police have frame recognition software yet. 

 

You keep throwing out this red herring about pedestrians why not give more reasons as to why cyclists should:

 

a) not be made easily recognisable

b) should have the law applied differently to them compared to other road users.

's funny because I thought that pedestrians were 'other road users' so why do you think cyclists should be treated differently to those 'other road users'?(they don't have a requirement to be 'easily recognisable') or even horse riders who also don't have registration plates (and yes, I've had my wing mirror pushed back whilst stationary by a horse riding by, the rider did apologise but I've no idea who she was).

 

As far as CCTV goes, I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make. An earlier thread on here showed a female cyclist dying after going under a truck, it was as straightforward to recognise her face as it would have been for any pedestrian. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wanderer Vagabond said:

's funny because I thought that pedestrians were 'other road users' so why do you think cyclists should be treated differently to those 'other road users'?(they don't have a requirement to be 'easily recognisable') or even horse riders who also don't have registration plates (and yes, I've had my wing mirror pushed back whilst stationary by a horse riding by, the rider did apologise but I've no idea who she was).

 

As far as CCTV goes, I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make. An earlier thread on here showed a female cyclist dying after going under a truck, it was as straightforward to recognise her face as it would have been for any pedestrian. 

Even out here in the sticks most pedestrians are on the pavement.  However you are still coming up with red herrings trying to defend the indefensible.

 

You know why I think cyclists should be recognisable I don't need to go over that again.

 

Have you ever tried racing a horse on tarmac with a bike?   In my youth I did, the horse very nearly fell in the first 10 yards owing to lack of grip and the rider had to rein in.   A horse is very much in the pedestrian category in my experience they aren't escaping at speed.   However  as I travel along at 5 mph behind the 30 race horses as they traipse through the village I have often said they should have a "road fund" disc stuck to their rump.

 

Did the horse do damage to you or the car?  If they had would you have been able to carry on a conversation about it, of course you would, you did.   Cyclists - some will stop and own up when they cause damage others don't, a horse rider isn't generally in a position to gallop off through traffic.

 

With regard tom CCTV of course it was easy to recognise the poor woman's face, she she wasn't head down speeding away from an accident.

 

Now can you supply a few more reasons why sanity shouldn't prevail and cycles be registered.  Historically there wasn't the need for registration, things have changed  and the attitude of people to try to avoid their responsibilities has changed.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jerra said:

There is no case for registration of pedestrians as nobody apart from those clutching at straws to boost their argument.  Pedestrians are slower moving they can be talked to or followed.  It is a different matter trying to talk to a cyclist as they rush away.   You can keep standing in front of the pedestrian, do you want to stand in front of a cyclist escaping at speed.

 

There is IMO no logical or moral reason to try to prevent registration of cyclists.

Just as it would be better if all road users obeyed the laws and were traceable when they didn't.  Applying a law unequally across groups isn't logical or fair if cyclists were identifiable it wouldn't happen much either.

As I said, it would be better if drivers/ riders drove at a safe speed. And of course, took proper observations rather than perhaps being distracted by their (legal) sat nav, and (legal) hands free phone conversation. If this were the case road regulations would be largely unnecessary and therefore redundant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amusing to compare this thread to the Brexit one. Over there, the remainers agree with each other regarding every argument each of them put forward. It seems there's nothing they could possibly disagree on. Over here they squabble like 2 jealous siblings.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

As I said, it would be better if drivers/ riders drove at a safe speed. And of course, took proper observations rather than perhaps being distracted by their (legal) sat nav, and (legal) hands free phone conversation. If this were the case road regulations would be largely unnecessary and therefore redundant.

In a utopia perhaps sadly we don't live in a utopia and the number of cycle related incidents is increasing hence my opinion that they need to be recognisable.

 

I don't see things improving in the near future which makes IMO registration more a requirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

Have you considered that it might be safer for a cyclist to cautiously ignore a red light rather than waiting for the ensuing rush of traffic?

........... it might be safer for any vehicle to ignore a red light - but the result is called anarchy. ..............   perhaps you believe that red lights are there just to hold up cars and trucks, so the cyclists can get an open road all to themselves.

 

round my way cyclists have been empowered by the concept of making the city 'cycle friendly' and they are well used to taking liberties - the favourite seems to be crossing the road at a zebra crossing or a lighted crossing - at speed, without any consideration of vehicle stopping distances or even the status of the pedestrian crossing lights.

 

the idea of being courteous and considerate to all other road users is now routinely ignored by a fair percentage of cyclists.

 

in view of the potential for a bike to cause damage and/or injury in a collision it is just commons sense that the bike or its rider should carry a visible ID plate and the rider should be insured.

 

 

 

  • Greenie 3

Share this post


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

Even out here in the sticks most pedestrians are on the pavement.  However you are still coming up with red herrings trying to defend the indefensible.

 

You know why I think cyclists should be recognisable I don't need to go over that again.

 

Have you ever tried racing a horse on tarmac with a bike?   In my youth I did, the horse very nearly fell in the first 10 yards owing to lack of grip and the rider had to rein in.   A horse is very much in the pedestrian category in my experience they aren't escaping at speed.   However  as I travel along at 5 mph behind the 30 race horses as they traipse through the village I have often said they should have a "road fund" disc stuck to their rump.

 

Did the horse do damage to you or the car?  If they had would you have been able to carry on a conversation about it, of course you would, you did.   Cyclists - some will stop and own up when they cause damage others don't, a horse rider isn't generally in a position to gallop off through traffic.

 

With regard tom CCTV of course it was easy to recognise the poor woman's face, she she wasn't head down speeding away from an accident.

 

Now can you supply a few more reasons why sanity shouldn't prevail and cycles be registered.  Historically there wasn't the need for registration, things have changed  and the attitude of people to try to avoid their responsibilities has changed.

Sort of going around in circles here but as I put at the top of a previous post, it is down to enforcement. If you are content to pay a considerable increase in both your council tax and national taxes so that we can have enough Police Officers to be wasting their time on enforcement then so be it. As with most things it is the one's that you would wish to target that will ignore any requirement for registration. Yes, you can easily heavily penalise those that would comply with the law anyway by making them take out a pointless registration but unless their is a credible enforcement method, the offenders that everyone decries will continue offending. The drug courier on his cycle, is he going to register? no of course he isn't, try and catch him and he'll ditch the bike and go and steal another one. There was enough of a problem with cloning of car registrations before the tightening of the regulations as to who can supply number plates. that would be repeated with cycle registration plates. Even if they cannot clone them, when a cycle gets left anywhere the registration would be the perfect target for theft and then criminals can use their bikes on someone else's reg plate. For those who love bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, cycle registration is a brilliant idea and will give work to someone to administer the scheme, but ultimately, without enforcement, it is going nowhere, and at the moment we don't have enough Police to bog around on something as trivial as this.

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Sort of going around in circles here but as I put at the top of a previous post, it is down to enforcement. If you are content to pay a considerable increase in both your council tax and national taxes so that we can have enough Police Officers to be wasting their time on enforcement then so be it. As with most things it is the one's that you would wish to target that will ignore any requirement for registration. Yes, you can easily heavily penalise those that would comply with the law anyway by making them take out a pointless registration but unless their is a credible enforcement method, the offenders that everyone decries will continue offending. The drug courier on his cycle, is he going to register? no of course he isn't, try and catch him and he'll ditch the bike and go and steal another one. There was enough of a problem with cloning of car registrations before the tightening of the regulations as to who can supply number plates. that would be repeated with cycle registration plates. Even if they cannot clone them, when a cycle gets left anywhere the registration would be the perfect target for theft and then criminals can use their bikes on someone else's reg plate. For those who love bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, cycle registration is a brilliant idea and will give work to someone to administer the scheme, but ultimately, without enforcement, it is going nowhere, and at the moment we don't have enough Police to bog around on something as trivial as this.

Great post that, bang on the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cyclists to wear Hi viz vest with insurance registration number on the back in large print. Most malicious cyclist incidents will involve the victim seeing the cyclist removing themselves from the area ASAP. 

 

It does need sorting. 

 

Eta I suppose its not worth insuring boaters either as it is neither enforced nor checked. Well maybe they do random checks. 

 

3rd party insurance for cyclists an visible ID is needed. When cycling on public highways. Obvs not out in the park with the kids. 

Edited by magnetman
  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Cyclists to wear Hi viz vest with insurance registration number on the back in large print. Most malicious cyclist incidents will involve the victim seeing the cyclist removing themselves from the area ASAP. 

 

It does need sorting. 

Sigh :huh:, and for those that don't bother, who is going to be doing the enforcement????? Do we really have that many Police around? Knife crime/Gun Crime/Cycle enforcement, your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Knife crime/Gun Crime/Cycle enforcement, your choice.

We could go for the combo and allow irate drivers to shoot cyclists ...

 

... but only if the cyclists are allowed to shoot back!

Edited by TheBiscuits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Sigh :huh:, and for those that don't bother, who is going to be doing the enforcement????? Do we really have that many Police around? Knife crime/Gun Crime/Cycle enforcement, your choice.

So you are assuming most cyclists are into breaking the law. 

 

These must be some mean cyclists. 

 

I suspect if legislation was brought in to require cyclists on public highways (and towpaths !!) to have ID and insurance most people would comply. 

 

Obviously you will get non compliant people but I suspect they would be a small minority. Unless you assume all cyclists are malevolent which I do not believe to be the case. 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Cyclists to wear Hi viz vest with insurance registration number on the back in large print. Most malicious cyclist incidents will involve the victim seeing the cyclist removing themselves from the area ASAP. 

 

It does need sorting. 

 

Eta I suppose its not worth insuring boaters either as it is neither enforced nor checked. Well maybe they do random checks. 

 

3rd party insurance for cyclists an visible ID is needed. When cycling on public highways. Obvs not out in the park with the kids. 

My recollection is that you need to give insurance details to get your licence, but even with this minimal enforcement are there uninsured boats on the waterways? Absolutely certainly. Are they going to be the sort of people who when they hit your boat will off like long dogs? almost definitely. I don't insure my boat to comply with conditions, I insure my boat so that if it sinks/burns out or is substantially damaged by either vandalism or an unidentified boat, I will be covered, there is a benefit to me which is why I do it. There is no benefit to me at all in registering a cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, magnetman said:

So you are assuming most cyclists are into breaking the law. 

 

These must be some mean cyclists. 

 

I suspect if legislation was brought in to require cyclists on public highways (and towpaths !!) to have ID and insurance most people would comply. 

 

Obviously you will get non compliant people but I suspect they would be a small minority. Unless you assume all cyclists are malevolent which I do not believe to be the case. 

I haven't said anything like that. What I have said is that the law abiding majority will get their registration plates, the one's you would wish to target, the lycra loons/yobs on mountain bikes/criminal fraternity etc, the one's that one would want to deal with, simply wont bother, you are just penalising the law abiding majority for something that, without adequate enforcement, is utterly pointless.

10 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

We could go for the combo and allow irate drivers to shoot cyclists ...

 

... but only if the cyclists are allowed to shoot back!

You may mock but some of the London cycle drug couriers are armed (knife or gun) as they are working for gangs. Shoot one if you want but you might then answer to his gang.

Edited by Wanderer Vagabond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed re the boat insurance. I have several quite expensive boats all insured on one 3rd party policy. If I maim or kill someone with one of my boats I am covered. Sorted. 

 

With bikes it comes down to the injury potential. Most people riding bicycles on "shared paths" (joke) will recognise that their behaviour presents a risk to other users. In the same way that boaters under the 1995 BW act recognise that their behaviour presents a risk to others. 

 

I still think most people are basically law abiding. New cycle legislation is needed and it would be a great opportunity to legalise 30mph ebikes with 3rd party insurance and compulsory high viz vest with reg number. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

it would be a great opportunity to legalise 30mph ebikes with 3rd party insurance and compulsory high viz vest with reg number. 

Or electric mopeds as they are known ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. Modern technology changes the story. 

Lighter motors, lighter batteries they look more like electric bikes then mopeds. 

An update is needed to accommodate modern tech. 

 

Eta the point I was making is that people WILL use pedal cycles and high powered ebikes in inappropriate ways. 

 

If legislation does come in to control bicycle use I really hope it includes recognition of the technical advances of ebikes and maybe they can be separated from mopeds in a legal sense. That would be good..

Edited by magnetman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention the old biddys on their 8 mph Mobility Scooters.  They have a switch to limit them to 4 mph on pavements, but they never seem to use it.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Agreed re the boat insurance. I have several quite expensive boats all insured on one 3rd party policy. If I maim or kill someone with one of my boats I am covered. Sorted. 

 

With bikes it comes down to the injury potential. Most people riding bicycles on "shared paths" (joke) will recognise that their behaviour presents a risk to other users. In the same way that boaters under the 1995 BW act recognise that their behaviour presents a risk to others. 

 

I still think most people are basically law abiding. New cycle legislation is needed and it would be a great opportunity to legalise 30mph ebikes with 3rd party insurance and compulsory high viz vest with reg number. 

You already can legally ride a 30mph e-bike it's classed as a moped, Category P so would already require 3rd party insurance,MOT,licence etc. It seems odd that as a car licence holder I can ride one of these mopeds without taking any further test, even if I had never ridden a bike before, makes a bit of a mockery of it really. On the one hand people want cyclists to undergo training and yet without training I can ride a moped.

 

Category P

You can drive 2-wheeled vehicles with a maximum design speed of over 45km/h (28mph) but not more than 50km/h (31mph).

Its engine size must not be more than 50cc if powered by an internal combustion engine

 

 

 

Edited by Wanderer Vagabond

Share this post


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

So you are assuming most cyclists are into breaking the law. 

 

These must be some mean cyclists. 

 

I suspect if legislation was brought in to require cyclists on public highways (and towpaths !!) to have ID and insurance most people would comply. 

 

Obviously you will get non compliant people but I suspect they would be a small minority. Unless you assume all cyclists are malevolent which I do not believe to be the case. 

Just like most motorists have insurance for their car a few don't.   The constant harping on about costs doesn't take into account hidden costs.   As the number of cyclists increases the number of claims by motorists will increase the insurance companies unable to get money from the cyclists insurance will have to increase their charges.  OK not massively but it is a cost and most people are continually moaning about the cost of various insurances.   Motorists I believe have their insurance co charged for certain medical help/procedures (they certainly were at one time) via their insurance after what used to be called RTAs.   Such charges can't be made to cyclists as there is no requirement for insurance and in some cases it will be the pedestrian and the cyclist can't be traced.   I am sure there are other costs as well.

 

With city cyclists camera at traffic lights (which already exist in many places) could enforce red light jumping, ANPR camera could also deal with some of the enforcement.   A suitably large penalty for being caught without registration would soon get the message over that it was cheaper to comply than be a rebel.   I don't know about other areas but in ours the PSO could deal with offenders as they wander the streets an their daily rounds (I hesitate to call it a beat).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

 On the one hand people want cyclists to undergo training and yet without training I can ride a moped.

A couple of thoughts on this.   Firstly the law was framed for a time when the traffic and indeed society was considerably different mopeds were allowed on a driving licence when I was learning to drive nearly 60 years ago and had been for a lot of years.  So the "right" may be 100 years old, perhaps you are right and the old allowance on driving licences should be removed.

 

The second thought is that much of the training I would expect a cyclist to need are things that a driver already knows, most people start to cycle when young with no experience of roads and driving.   I would think a law about cycle training would be a bit like the law about towing i.e. give grandfather rights to a large portion of society.   Out of interest are there many primary schools which don't already offer RoSPA training?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

It's amusing to compare this thread to the Brexit one. Over there, the remainers agree with each other regarding every argument each of them put forward. It seems there's nothing they could possibly disagree on. Over here they squabble like 2 jealous siblings.

 

That's about as relevant to this conversation as their eye colour or astrological sign. 

11 hours ago, Murflynn said:

the idea of being courteous and considerate to all other road users is now routinely ignored by a fair percentage of cyclists.

 

Which doesn't prevent the rest of us, motorists and cyclists alike, from being courteous and considerate, does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This conversation is too polarising, i'm out, i just hope the police lock them all up before they kill again! ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thought I'd add a bit about me. I cycle because I don't drive. When I'm out and about on the bike, I'm wearing what I'm wearing. When I specifically go out for a bike ride I'm a 'lycra clad' person.

Just looking at my rides since I've had a 'Garmin' device, I've done 626 rides, covered a distance of 23,853 miles and cycled for 1764 hours.

I've never had an accident, although I have slipped off the bike several times on ice.

I've had some very close calls with aggressive people driving cars, but I've also been shown far more kindness and consideration form the majority of motorists out there.

I've also seen many stupid people on bikes doing daft things, but I've also seen many more considerate cyclists riding in a courteous way.

 

Strange thing, whilst boating (last 5 years) I've seen several idiots on their boats who don't want to obey the waterway rules, but have seen many more who are kind and courteous.

 

In life there are those antisocial people who think nothing applies to them, and there are those of us who just want to get on and be happy. 

We always hear about the 1% of antisocial people, but rarely about the other 99%.

 

Please, I'm a cyclist along with many others, don't label us with those idiots who ride a bike - thank you.

  • Greenie 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.