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
LadyG

I joined the CTC

Featured Posts

8 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

Why do you think that users of most types of vehicle have to be registered, insured tested etc to use the roads and yet cyclists using their vehicle do not? They are using a vehicle and if on a road, or more likely footpath the same rules should apply.

Go on then, sell it to me as a cyclist. What advantage do I as a cyclist get from a pointless registration scheme?

 

As a motorist what you get by having a registration number is to begin, with when you purchase the car, it gives you at least some idea of who the owner might be with a clue as to whether he/she had legal entitlement to the vehicle. When it comes to insuring your new purchase, if insurance companies were unable to insure an individual vehicle and had to insure the person themselves (because the vehicle was not identifiable) how much do you think your insurance would be since it would have to cover you for whatever vehicle you chose to drive from a Smart car up to a Mclaren? Tracing vehicles after incidents is just a by-product of the above benefits, and not particularly reliable. Someone is seen to take your wing mirror off as they drive past and their registration is taken by some concerned citizen, when challenged they merely reply,"Wasn't me guv" and unless there is visible recent damage to their vehicle that they are unable to explain, there the matter will end.

 

The fact is that I will not accept any proposals made by motorists because whatever I may concede to will never be enough so I choose to concede to nothing. How about I as a multiple type of transport user demanded that all drivers had to take a medical check every five years (as I have to do as a LGV driver)? Better still how about a retest of every driver every 10 years to ensure that they are maintaining standards?

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


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

Why do you think that users of most types of vehicle have to be registered, insured tested etc to use the roads and yet cyclists using their vehicle do not? They are using a vehicle and if on a road, or more likely footpath the same rules should apply.

Can you name any country that has introduced this with success ?

Switzerland used to have a system - you paid some Francs and you got a sticker to put on the bike.

They abandoned it. And that's the most law abiding country in the world. 

There's no benefit. 

Bikes are not a risk. In fact we need more people on them and out of their cars. 

The licence cost would be eaten by administration. 

 

Maybe let's come back on this when drivers have stopped maiming and killing people and all cars are taxed. 

 

Other than that - we have far bigger issues. 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


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

Go on then, sell it to me as a cyclist. What advantage do I as a cyclist get from a pointless registration scheme?

 

As a motorist what you get by having a registration number is to begin, with when you purchase the car, it gives you at least some idea of who the owner might be with a clue as to whether he/she had legal entitlement to the vehicle. When it comes to insuring your new purchase, if insurance companies were unable to insure an individual vehicle and had to insure the person themselves (because the vehicle was not identifiable) how much do you think your insurance would be since it would have to cover you for whatever vehicle you chose to drive from a Smart car up to a Mclaren? Tracing vehicles after incidents is just a by-product of the above benefits, and not particularly reliable. Someone is seen to take your wing mirror off as they drive past and their registration is taken by some concerned citizen, when challenged they merely reply,"Wasn't me guv" and unless there is visible recent damage to their vehicle that they are unable to explain, there the matter will end.

 

The fact is that I will not accept any proposals made by motorists because whatever I may concede to will never be enough so I choose to concede to nothing. How about I as a multiple type of transport user demanded that all drivers had to take a medical check every five years (as I have to do as a LGV driver)? Better still how about a retest of every driver every 10 years to ensure that they are maintaining standards?

I dont give two hoots as to what advantage you as a cyclist gets from such a scheme, its not for your particular benefit, it would just bring your choice of vehicle in to line with mine and others. I am not insane enough to ever get on a stupid push bike, they are a ridiculous idea and benefit no one. Far safer to keep fit by walking than getting on such an outdated vehicle and put yourself in line of 42 ton trucks and cars etc. Your second paragraph nearly makes some sense but we should all be tested every five years not ten but the government will not introduce it as there isnt the infrastructure in place to comply. Completely agree re the medicals also and furthermore a mandatory opticians visit every two years. Bring it on. trouble is it will never happen, only 18 years to go and all cars will be electric also 🙄

56 minutes ago, cougie said:

Can you name any country that has introduced this with success ?

Switzerland used to have a system - you paid some Francs and you got a sticker to put on the bike.

They abandoned it. And that's the most law abiding country in the world. 

There's no benefit. 

Bikes are not a risk. In fact we need more people on them and out of their cars. 

The licence cost would be eaten by administration. 

 

Maybe let's come back on this when drivers have stopped maiming and killing people and all cars are taxed. 

 

Other than that - we have far bigger issues. 

Nope, there is always a first for everything. It will probably be impossible,  like stopping smoking in public buildings for instance, that would never become law. Bikes are not a risk but several numpties on them are.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


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

I dont give two hoots as to what advantage you as a cyclist gets from such a scheme, its not for your particular benefit, it would just bring your choice of vehicle in to line with mine and others. I am not insane enough to ever get on a stupid push bike, they are a ridiculous idea and benefit no one. Far safer to keep fit by walking than getting on such an outdated vehicle and put yourself in line of 42 ton trucks and cars etc. Your second paragraph nearly makes some sense but we should all be tested every five years not ten but the government will not introduce it as there isnt the infrastructure in place to comply. Completely agree re the medicals also and furthermore a mandatory opticians visit every two years. Bring it on. trouble is it will never happen, only 18 years to go and all cars will be electric also 🙄

Nope, there is always a first for everything. It will probably be impossible,  like stopping smoking in public buildings for instance, that would never become law. Bikes are not a risk but several numpties on them are.

So you are essentially admitting that it is an utterly pointless exercise just to serve the purpose of satisfying the hatred of motorists who, these days, find themselves sitting in endless queues of traffic to get anywhere and resent the fact that cyclists don't. You illustrate my point perfectly in that whatever policies were introduced against cyclists, such motorists are never going to be happy there will always be 'just one more thing' to try to deter cycling (registration plates, registration plates lit at night,insurance,paying some form of road tax,making the use of cycle lanes mandatory,reflective jackets,use of lights during daylight,wearing cycle helmets, the list is endless, which is why I will always oppose all of them, because there is no point in trying to satisfy whinging motorists, so why bother even trying?).

 

As a pedestrian you think I'd be safer? Latest statistics give 400 pedestrian deaths (possibly as many as 3 caused by cyclists😱) and 109 pedal cyclist deaths, I don't think so. I also do quite a lot of walking and I've actually had as many near misses as a pedestrian as a cyclist, things that I'm obviously wholly to blame for such as the half wit coming off the roundabout failing to see the pedestrian lights against him and blatting across the traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing, silly me, fancy using something as old fashioned as a pedestrian crossing.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

Why do you think that users of most types of vehicle have to be registered, insured tested etc to use the roads and yet cyclists using their vehicle do not? They are using a vehicle and if on a road, or more likely footpath the same rules should apply.

Vehicle registration was originally introduced to allow the police to identify offenders, still their biggest single function - the ability of drivers to report each other was a side effect.

 

France was the first to use them in 1893, the UK was late joining the party in 1904. Originally counties kept the records, probably easier in the days before telephones, the delay with enquiries from a central database would have been awkward 

 

Somewhere in my collection I have "The Motor Car in Politics 1896-1970" the arguments over car and cycle regulations are nothing new - the CTC opposed bike lights on the basis that cyclists shouldn't be expected to pay for batteries. Elsewhere the AA opposed pedestrian crossings on the basis that pedestrians were inferior citizens and in the way of the noble car driver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

Vehicle registration was originally introduced to allow the police to identify offenders, still their biggest single function - the ability of drivers to report each other was a side effect.

 

France was the first to use them in 1893, the UK was late joining the party in 1904. Originally counties kept the records, probably easier in the days before telephones, the delay with enquiries from a central database would have been awkward 

 

Somewhere in my collection I have "The Motor Car in Politics 1896-1970" the arguments over car and cycle regulations are nothing new - the CTC opposed bike lights on the basis that cyclists shouldn't be expected to pay for batteries. Elsewhere the AA opposed pedestrian crossings on the basis that pedestrians were inferior citizens and in the way of the noble car driver.

Nothing's changed much then?:huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "blue sky idea" of abolishing tax discs has lost £300 m in unpaid taxes, as anyone could have predicted.

One imagines the vehicles and drivers are also uninsured.

Edited by LadyG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, LadyG said:

The "blue sky idea" of abolishing tax discs has lost £300 m in unpaid taxes, as anyone could have predicted.

One imagines the vehicles and drivers are also uninsured.

Really? I'd have thought ANPR cameras and the DVLA SORN system would have identified far more untaxed vehicles than the nowadays rarely seen Mr Plod spotting a tax disc discrepancy.

 

Stick the tax on fuel - those owning gas guzzlers pay more; those doing high mileages pay more, fuel efficient vehicles pay less; low usage vehicles pay less; foreign visitors and foreign commercial vehicles contribute for their bit of water and tear; everyone can mitigate their costs by driving smoothly and non aggressively. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

Really? I'd have thought ANPR cameras and the DVLA SORN system would have identified far more untaxed vehicles than the nowadays rarely seen Mr Plod spotting a tax disc discrepancy.

 

Stick the tax on fuel - those owning gas guzzlers pay more; those doing high mileages pay more, fuel efficient vehicles pay less; low usage vehicles pay less; foreign visitors and foreign commercial vehicles contribute for their bit of water and tear; everyone can mitigate their costs by driving smoothly and non aggressively. 

Many of the cars round the Fens run on foreign plates anyway. As for the Police spotting VED discrepancy, What Police, seeing one nowadays is a rare sight. ANPR cameras tend to be found only in citys and on motorways.

Edited by nbfiresprite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • 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.