To suggest cyclists need to be licensed

[savethebeesandthecees]

And also pay Road Tax and risk having their licence revoked for misuse.

I'm saying this as a pedestrian. Nearly hit again by a cyclist going through a red light. Others routinely mount the pavement to swerve red lights. I'm sick of it. If I film them as evidence, so what? What are the consequences?

Something needs to change.

As a cyclist, i would like to see the following rules implemented: 1. All bike helmets should be white or fluorescent yellow or green . 2. All bike shoes should be fluorescent yellow or green. 3. All bikes should have fluorescent features (wheels or tyres or frames) as a matter of course. 4. Max size of a group of cyclist should be 4. No two groups should be closer than 4 car lengths apart. 5. In towns/cities it should be illegal for a cyclist or motorcyclist or moped to pass stationery cars on the left unless there is a dedicated cycle lane on the road. It should also be illegal for motorists to move to the left to stop cyclists doing this

As a cyclist I ask you who’s going to enforce this, the green cross code man?
Remind me what the conviction rate for burglary is again.

there should be far more regulation

Whether you think cyclists should be taxed, licensed or insured or not, the evidence is, in regard to cars, it doesn't stop 1800 people on average, being killed by cars every year or around 1m uninsured car drivers on the roads.

With increasing obesity rates, very bad air quality, poor public health and a cost of living crisis, i'd have thought we need to encourage more cycling and walking... but apparently the Govt should rid the roads of cyclists, because thats what theses sorts of measures would do..

However, i would like cyclists to be encouraged to be insured, if only for their own good when run of the road by some crazed car driver.

Schapps should look at a study done by his own department just a few months ago, which showed licencing etc is unworkable before attempting to appease the angary 'Mail Boomer lot.

I find this debate so amusing.

Ever increasing obesity issues
Ever increasing traffic issues
Ever increasing pollution issues
Ever increasing cost of living crisis

Wow, let’s pick on one of the greenest, low cost, healthy modes of transport. Unbelievable.

I have just come back from a city break in Madrid. The place was full of bikes, electric bikes, electric scooters. You name it, they used it to get around. Roads flowed, air was clean and people smiled.

Just as a matter of interest are we going to target youths too? Kids who use bikes to have a social life. Get to school, maybe even their first job. Possibly quite a proportion of Mumsnet members DC who don’t drive their kids everywhere.

shocking

I don’t disagree it doesn’t stop Road deaths caused by cars
but if a cyclist causes an accident that results in life changing injuries for someone then why should they not be held to account?

in any event because there’s an opportunity to raid the public’s coffers yet again this “government” will do something I’ll conceived and far too hasty

If a cyclist does cause such injuries, then likely as not they will also crash and then be held to account.

BUT we need to look at where the danger to us & our children all lies and it is with car drivers,
So driving, for most people is the most dangerous thing they will ever do, 10s of 1000s of people end up with severe injuries as a result of road collisions with cars... not bicycles.

I'd like to see a far harder driving test, such as in most of europe and 10 year retests

As a pedestrian, cyclist and car user I think all cyclist should need insurance. However cars will always cause a lot more damage than a bike and I honestly think all car users need to spend at least a few miles cycling on British roads at they might develop a bit more empathy and understanding for cyclists. Then they might start to realise the dangers that we face daily be that cars cutting us up, potholes the size of moon crates, smashed glass and accident debris that we need to avoid, pedestrians stepping out into the road without looking because they assume no noise = safe to cross and much more!

@OneTC North Korea, and when this comes up I think do we really want to follow there lead? Is that what people want to emulate?

What type of cycle, what speed were they cycling and what type of cycle path was it?

Cycle paths are generally mixed with pedestrians, have roadside furniture such as signposts & trees, let alone lack of maintenance etc

It is also recommended that cyclists riding at at 18mph should not be on cycle paths

webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/+/www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2004/ltnwc/annexdcodeofconductnoticefor1688

How are the police going to trace a bike from video? That's the point, at least identification on them would help there.

This line of thinking is so depressing.

All it does is put people off cycling.

We need way more people cycling, with much better infrastructure. It's better for health, the environment and safety. A tiny number of people are injured by cyclists each year and yes of course cyclists shouldn't ride on pavements, ignore red lights and hit pedestrians. But I cycle every day and usually have at least one near miss with a car. The last time I nearly hit a pedestrian was when one decided to step in front of a stationary bus at a bus stop into traffic while looking at his phone.

And of course we shouldn't pay vehicle tax - we don't emit any pollutants. That's a stupid idea. I'm actually supportive of voluntary insurance. But I pay taxes via plenty of other routes and I promise you it isn't my bike wearing out the infrastructure.

I speak as an urban cyclist. I can only see good outcomes from increasing urban cycling. Perhaps I would feel differently if I lived in narrow country roads.

There is interesting research on drivers seeing cyclists as "other", and which makes them drive more aggressively. It's one of the reasons I wear normal clothes while cycling. That plus trying to show people that you don't need to wrap yourself in lycra to get on a bike.

Cycle paths are generally mixed with pedestrians, have roadside furniture such as signposts & trees, let alone lack of maintenance etc

I have been cycling 9 years and cannot recall more than a handful of cycle paths being suitable for a road bike even at low speeds. They are usually full of cracks or lumps from tree roots meaning that riding on anything with 70+ psi tyres is too uncomfortable to bare!

When anyone whinges about cyclists not using a cycle path, I ask for a Google Maps link to the location. Inevitably the cycle lane is really poorly designed; stops every 100yds to give way to a side road; is difficult to access without stopping, dismounting, crossing and restarting; doesn't actually go where you need to go; is shared with kamikaze pedestrians (usually without so much as the solid white line which just gets ignored anyway)...

Don't forget cars parked in them. Is that legal btw? Genuine question

Don't forget cars parked in them. Is that legal btw? Genuine question

it depends

if it’s a painted line and dashed - yes it’s legal to park in cycle lane

if solid white line then it’s not legal

In the last month (yes, month!) I've had two vehicles hit, while parked, by licence holding, insured and taxed car drivers.

One car was a write off and has now been scrapped, thankfully the other just seems to be a minor paintwork scuff.

Both were legally parked midway down the street in a marked bay, in broad daylight, on 20mph residential roads.

A month before that I very nearly had a lorry driver drive up my rear on the motorway - he came within about a metre of the back of my vehicle, blaring his horn and doing an emergency stop. Broad daylight, and an unusually conspicuous vehicle. Terrifying.

Weirdly insurance, tax and licences didn't stop any of the above.

We regulate things in proportion to the capacity they have for causing damage to others. The capacity that cyclists have for causing damage is very, very low in comparison to those who drive one-two tonne lumps of metal around at 70mph. It's also invariably the cyclist who gets hurt first when they screw up, unlike when drivers screw up.

How are the police going to trace a bike from video? That's the point, at least identification on them would help there.

whenever, and it’s rare so usually makes media attention, a pedestrian has been killed - cyclists have been identified if they left scean

Thanks!

How are the police going to trace a bike from video? That's the point, at least identification on them would help there.

biris bikes are all registered, you have to supply your details to use one. Not ever has this system been used to legitimately track a cyclists - yet it’d be easy to do so

Boris not biris

400 pedestrian deaths per year, and on average 2.5 of them involve a bicycle. 99% involve a motorised vehicle....

I don't think it's cyclists that present the danger here.

Source: www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/08/killer-cyclists-roads-bikes-pedestrian-collision-deaths-britain

Indeed, you're around 10 times more likely to be struck by lightning (and as likely to be killed by lightning) as you are to be a pedestrian killed by a cyclist

www.rospa.com/leisure-water-safety/leisure-safety/lightning

If anyone is really interested in reducing the number of people who die in accidents, regulating cycling is not an evidence based place to start.

'Thrallswife' asked about training for children. This country has long had what was called Cycling Proficiency. There is now new training for children and adults called Bikeability. It's government funded and often run by local authorities and by Cycling UK trained instructors. It teaches road sense, road rules, communication with drivers and riding confidently which may mean taking the centre of the lane when road conditions allow or because its actually safer to be in mid lane where drivers can see you and you are cycling at the speed of traffic around. Car drivers don't own the road. Do those of you who complain about 'being stuck behind' cyclists feel the same about horses, tractors, trailers, slow vehicles?
Of course the training is not compulsory but it does make you a safer, better cyclist. The thing is that very few people think they need tuition to ride a bike. Our roads are filled with arrogance and carelessness, it would be good to see a bit more caring and tolerance.

Have yet to knock anyone over or cause an accident on my bike, yet been knocked off it twice by dogs. Clearly it’s time to make sure pedestrians and dog owners are taxed and insured.

For everyone of your cycling near misses, there will be people actually hit and killed by cars. Far more bad drivers than there are bad cyclists.

Totally impractical, will discourage more people from cycling therefore causing more health problems and more pollution, will have much more impact on the young than the over 50’s (who are the majority of whiners on this as they are with electric scooters) and the people who are most likely to cause issues won’t be registering or paying insurance anyway, just like cars.

So tired of all this pathetic anti-cyclist bullshit and how acceptable it seems to have become.

Go on then - if it’s that easy, tell us how it would work for private cycles?

400 pedestrian deaths per year, and on average 2.5 of them involve a bicycle. 99% involve a motorised vehicle....

thats terrible, yet people constantly talk as if it’s cyclists on the pavement that are the danger - it’s like a red herring or decoy to the real danger 400 pedestrians- that’s more than one a day and 398 by drivers

MongoOnlyPawnInGameOfLife

if it’s never been used for Boris bikes why would you need it on private cycles?