that the idea of registration for cyclists is silly, unworkable and unenforceable

[KihoBebiluPute]

This idea was featured on Radio 4 on monday morning and is also in the telegraph - Nick Freeman (the motorists loophole lawyer) is trying to drum up support for a scheme to force cyclists to register and display a number plate type thing.

I get that there are plenty of selfish and sometimes dangerous cyclists out there, but the numbers of deaths and injuries caused by dangerous cycling is a minuscule fraction of the numbers caused by careless driving and the whole idea seems totally unrealistic to me.

(1) For number plates to work as a reasonably reliable registration method for cars, the manufacture of number plates has to be quite tightly controlled - criminals do clone plates but it's not easy for an ordinary member of the public to get a plate without proof of ownership, and plates are fixed to the correct car and generally stay put. Any kind of wearable registration plate for cyclists would necessarily be something portable and would therefore be so easy to lose or nick that it would be functionally useless as a means of identification because there couldn't be any means to verifiably ensure that each plate was only ever carried by the correctly registered individual associated with that number plate.

(2) cyclists don't come into the world as fully formed MAMILs - and the sight of a 6 year old wobbling along the pavement next to a parent is quite normal. There's no sharp divide between a kid just learning and a fully independent cyclist, no test to pass or license to grant. There's just a gradual build up of skills and road-sense and a gradual reduction in parental supervision. so there's no rational way to define when someone should start being registered (presumably no one thinks it should apply to kids who are just learning)

(3) its frankly stupid to put up any kind of additional barrier to make it more complicated to make a trip by bike rather than getting in the car. It's currently just about a reasonable balance for me for a lot of journeys - a tiny bit of extra hassle to find my helmet and D-lock, but the benefit of not having to find or pay for parking balances that enough that some fraction of the car-miles I might otherwise make, generating traffic congestion and pollution, gets turned into the green alternative of cycling. Upset this balance by making it a legal requirement to wear and carry this proposed registration plate and the net effect will be to drive up car traffic at a time when we should be doing everything we can to achieve the opposite.

@AlfonsoTheMango

This has been an interesting thread.

Although I am neither a driver nor a cyclist, I thought that there would be an argument that would help me to understand the pros and cons of the proposal.

Regrettably, all that it has done is to give me a poor opinion of cyclists.

Pros: cyclist who put people in danger can be held to account. I want this as much as any non-cyclist. Probably more. As a cyclist, I'm put at risk by the bad behaviours of other cyclists.

Cons: pedestrians step out in front of me constantly. I keep very aware and have never collided. However, in my opinion there have been many near misses where it would be completely unreasonable for me to have to pay out. I have had many more near misses as a cyclist than as a driver, which I think is because pedestrians behave more recklessly around bikes than around cars.
Puts people off cycling, thus reducing fitness and also putting them in to cars.

[quote Voluptuagoodshag]@MorganKitten you were assaulted by a human who just happened to be riding a bike.[/quote]
Who screamed ‘I’m not getting in the road fucking move’ while cycling into me…. On a stretch of pavement well known for cyclists riding into people because they refused to use a cycle lane or road. I’d seen it happen with other cyclist several times.

How stupid are the bike haters who seem to think that making cyclists identifiable at all times is a great idea but simultaneously think making pedestrians similarly identifiable is totally ridiculous.

Why? Far more crimes are committed by people on foot than on bikes, so why shouldn't pedestrians be easily identifiable at all times?

Face it, you hate cyclists and you love sleepwalking into a surveillance society.

If anyone tries to "weld" anything to one of my bikes, I'll break their fucking neck

Sounds like a brilliant idea. Cyclists are a menace.

Cyclists should also be made to get insurance

@midgedude

I think no one should be allowed to take a driving test until they have completed at least 1000 miles on a bike so they know what it feels like to be exposed to drivers who pass way to close , drive into the cycle box at traffic lights and pedestrians who step out without looking

Cyclists should also be made to take a driving test. Theory and practical.

*cycling test

Well if the laws already in place for cars are anything to go by, I'm not sure they're going to have much affect on bikes.

I do think this is a bad idea. But all cyclists who use the roads should have proper insurance. Not sure how you police that either though!

As a car driver, and a motorcyclist, I am accountable should I hurt or kill someone as a result of my actions when in control of them.

I feel there should also be accountability if the same happened when on my bicycle. Insurance should be the very least someone should have.

A better idea would be more local policing similar to some US states
Local police enforce traffic laws (on all vehicles) - revenue from fines pays for the policing

Neron, cars and motorcycles are much more likely to cause death than cycles

I think no one should be allowed to take a driving test until they have completed at least 1000 miles on a bike so they know what it feels like to be exposed to drivers who pass way to close , drive into the cycle box at traffic lights and pedestrians who step out without looking
Do that mean car drivers and cyclists would do a CBT so they understand how dangerous their behaviour can be towards us motorcyclists

[quote Voluptuagoodshag]@Aprilx yes there is a system for vehicles and the laws still get broken and injuries and deaths still occur. So why introduce yet more laws? The laws already in place are adequate but there aren’t enough resources to ensure adherence so what actually is the point?[/quote]
That laws already get broken elsewhere is a really dumb reason to not bring in measures to ensure that there is a means of tracking down law breaking cyclists. I cannot even begin to respond to such a stupid comment.

Mac - anything that has the capacity to injure or kill, regardless of probability, should have accountability. Currently a cyclist can maim someone and there is no recourse for that, how is that fair?
Motorcyclists are more likely to be hurt, then to hurt someone else.

I say we just force everyone to display a number on their backs so when they assault someone, whether they are riding a bike or walking a dog they can be tracked, found and hung drawn and quartered.

Neron, but statistically very few are killed by cyclists,

@ichundich

I agree with you OP, but this discussion is just bringing out all the bike haters again. The main issue in the UK is not 'aggressive' cyclists but lack of safe, well-made cycling routes. Where I come from there are cycling lanes throughout the town as well as along (but not on) country roads.

Where I come from, a low traffic/populated area, there are several newly laid multi million pound cycle tracks directly parallel to the road, yet cyclists don't use them. Instead they chose to cycle two abreast on the narrow roads. It is hard jot to feel annoyed with them.

Why is being temporarily slowed down so annoying though?

@Neron

Mac - anything that has the capacity to injure or kill, regardless of probability, should have accountability. Currently a cyclist can maim someone and there is no recourse for that, how is that fair? Motorcyclists are more likely to be hurt, then to hurt someone else.

Our local vicar was kiled by a M/C he hit the car so hard, he almost cut it in half,,,, didn't have insurance either and a tiny number plate.

Motorcyclists are all scum/knobheads/twats (insert your insult) they aren't really but lumping groups of people together de humanises them, making insults and negative treatment far easier.

Not really sure why MN allows the hate to be directed at cyclists, possibly contributes to anti cyclist feeling that some motorists have.... if it were directed fat women with prams, threads would be removed and posters banned.

Do that mean car drivers and cyclists would do a CBT so they understand how dangerous their behaviour can be towards us motorcyclists

Hmm years ago a work colleague told me that every accident involving a motorbike was caused by a driver.

As I've yet to see a motorbike without an L plate adhering to the speed limits, I am somewhat cynical that that is true.

However, I think if all drivers had to do bikeability, they would also involve the risks to motorbikes as well as to pushbikes

involve? recognise!

Currently a cyclist can maim someone and there is no recourse for that, how is that fair

But there is recourse - they have the book thrown at them far more than a driver would in the same situation. Think about that woman who stepped out in front of the cyclist without looking and was killed. The cyclist was prosecuted for running her down. I am 100% certain that a driver would not have been prosecuted in the same circumstances but why was a cyclist expected to slow down when a driver would not have been (as long as they were doing 30 or less).

@Letsallscreamatthesistene

Im not an 'anti cyclist twat' but I agree that the minority should be held accountable for dangerous road use when they're cycling like a bellend. I also think they should pay road tax.

This winds me up.

There's NO SUCH THING as road tax.

There's Road Fund Licence, it's based on CO2 emissions, and on a bike would be £0.00 per year.