London cyclists dropping like flies

[JBR]

Can you give any plausible reason for not introducing number-plates for bicycles, other than the obvious drawback that you'd have to pay for them?

1. It has nothing to do with safety.
2. They have to be car sized for road cameras, such ideas have already been considered by government and deemed unsafe
3. It would be impossible to police
4. It would unfarily penalise the poor
5. It would increase the cost of second hand bikes, registration would cost more than what some second hand bikes cost
6. It's been tried in several countries, in all of them it cost more to administrate than it made.
7. What about horses
8. You really are a twit, licsence plates on cycles

1. It is a matter of identifiability, as I have said before.
2. A 'car sized' one could be worn on the cyclist's back. Sadly, though, it might spoil the effect of the trendy lycra outfit!
3. Why?
4. On the contrary, it would fairly penalise the arrogant.
5. Then don't buy one - use the bus instead.
6. Evidence?
7. I've never seen a horse gallop through a red traffic light. Horse riders seem to be in possession of much more sense.
8. You're a twit. You're more a twit than any other twit I have seen, even from Twitland.

Can you provide any reasonable evidence that...

People cycle through red lights, because they don't know what they are.

That's bloody rich,, coming from the very same person who advocates cycling through red traffic signals, because it "might be safe" ???? to do so, (on the most vulnerable type of transport on public roads)

And yet still, nobody can provide any evidence, at all, that people go through red lights do so because they don't know what a red light IS.

I agree (surprisingly). I'm sure that arrogant cyclists know full well what red traffic lights mean. They're just of the opinion that they are above the law.

 

[jockscott]

Hmmmmm http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-25093772 Ahh, says Aaron,, "That makes it alright then, he was just ignoring traffic laws."

 

[JBR]

Hmmmmm http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-25093772 Ahh, says Aaron,, "That makes it alright then, he was just ignoring traffic laws."

But surely, like red traffic lights, cyclists are not obliged to stop at pedestrian crossings are they?

(Just to pre-empt Aron, I believe that all wheeled traffic is obliged to stop at them according to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belisha_beacon )

 

[Ricardus]

Hmmmmm http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-25093772 Ahh, says Aaron,, "That makes it alright then, he was just ignoring traffic laws."

But surely, like red traffic lights, cyclists are not obliged to stop at pedestrian crossings are they?

(Just to pre-empt Aron, I believe that all wheeled traffic is obliged to stop at them according to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belisha_beacon )

I quite regularly see cyclists using pedestrian crossings to get across the road. Some of them want the benefits of being both pedestrians and road users with the penalties of neither.

 

[AronSearle]

1. It is a matter of identifiability, as I have said before.
2. A 'car sized' one could be worn on the cyclist's back. Sadly, though, it might spoil the effect of the trendy lycra outfit!
3. Why?
4. On the contrary, it would fairly penalise the arrogant.
5. Then don't buy one - use the bus instead.
6. Evidence?
7. I've never seen a horse gallop through a red traffic light. Horse riders seem to be in possession of much more sense.
8. You're a twit. You're more a twit than any other twit I have seen, even from Twitland.

1. So nothing to do with safety then, so let's just ignore you then.
2. blablabla
3. Why would it be impossible to police, are you joking? Do you know how many bikes are regularly stolen, how many are bought and sold second hand, are you going to have the police stop and randomly check cyclists for their papers, Kid's will now have to carry ID?
4. blablabla
5. So **** the poor then, how nice of you.
6. Google
7. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...centre-mayhem-horse-bolts-spooked-crowds.html
8. I'm still winning, your still losing

But surely, like red traffic lights, cyclists are not obliged to stop at pedestrian crossings are they?

If he hit someone it wasnt clear and should have stopped.

I don't know what part about "if it is clear" you people don't have the intelligence to understand.

How on earth do you manage to cross roundabouts, do you just close your eyes, put the pedal to the metal and pray to god?

 

[JBR]

Thank Aron. Some very well thought out and persuasive answers there.

Blah blah blah.

Let's just ignore him then!

 

[Ricardus]

1. So nothing to do with safety then, so let's just ignore you then.

Actually, motor vehicle license plates for any vehicle registered after 1973 (IIRC) have to be a certain size, reflective and illuminated at night.They are in effect, big reflectors that form part of the vehicle safety mechanisms.
Big fat illuminated reflectors are a bad idea for safety how??

2. blablabla

They manage to fit number plates on motorbikes. Cycles aren't that much smaller. And as said, there's always the option of wearing a number on your back.

3. Why would it be impossible to police, are you joking? Do you know how many bikes are regularly stolen, how many are bought and sold second hand, are you going to have the police stop and randomly check cyclists for their papers, Kid's will now have to carry ID?

Well all that number plate business seems to work reasonably well for cars, motorbikes, vans. Combined with a manufactures VIN type code stamped into the frame and a database linking the two.

5. So **** the poor then, how nice of you.

Being poor is rarely if ever an excuse for ignoring the law.
"I couldnt afford insurance, an MOT, tyres with tread or even to take driving lessons officer, but I didnt feel like taking the bus or public transport."
"Oh, why didnt you say so? Carry on motoring, sir."

6. Google

Citation needed.

8. I'm still winning, your still losing

'You may choose to beleive that, I couldn't possibly comment.'

But surely, like red traffic lights, cyclists are not obliged to stop at pedestrian crossings are they?

If he hit someone it wasnt clear and should have stopped.

I don't know what part about "if it is clear" you people don't have the intelligence to understand.[/quote]

The bit where A) If a pedestrian is already on or is standing at the side of a zebra crossing you are supposed to stop.
Or B) The fact that the referenced incident in Bournemouth appears to be a light controlled crossing and as the cyclist is up for a spell inside the odds are he ran a red or flashing amber.
Pic at http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/ne...involving_nine_year_old_Leila_Crofts/?ref=rss

 

[JBR]

Pic at http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/ne...g_nine_year_old_Leila_Crofts/?ref=rss[/QUOTE]

Looks an unhappy little mamil, doesn't he? Poor chap's got a lot on his mind, I suppose.

 

[AronSearle]

there's always the option of wearing a number on your back.

So number plates for people then

Well all that number plate business seems to work reasonably well for cars, motorbikes, vans.

Apples are not oranges, bikes are not cars, motorbikes or vans, how will you police the second hand market, stolen bikes, fake numberplates, kids, what you want can only be enforced by the police doing stop and checks of bikes, and for cyclists to carry compulsory ID (including children). If you can't see how farcicle enforing that will be, I can't help you.

Being poor is rarely if ever an excuse for ignoring the law.

It's not illigal to ride a bike though, so bit stupid to say that, plenty of people on minimun wage (or less) choose to ride, so they can afford to live, preciscly because they can't afford road tax, mot's car, fuel or public transport, one person I know cycled to loads of job interviews when on JSA.

(average cost of public transport being £40-110 per month, hardly chump change).

But **** the poor yea?

If a pedestrian is already on or is standing at the side of a zebra crossing you are supposed to stop.

Yeeessssss?

Or B) The fact that the referenced incident in Bournemouth appears to be a light controlled crossing and as the cyclist is up for a spell inside the odds are he ran a red or flashing amber.

Oh, you mean he jumped the light when it wasnt clear to do so.

Oh my, you mean he did exactly what I am saying he should NOT do?

What point are you trying to make exactly?

Thank Aron. Some very well thought out and persuasive answers there.

Glad to see you agree with them then, you do right, seeing as you didnt counter any of the points I made?

 

[JBR]

Thank Aron. Some very well thought out and persuasive answers there.

Glad to see you agree with them then, you do right, seeing as you didnt counter any of the points I made?

No, Ricardus beat me to it.

I can only presume that the concept of sarcasm has passed you by then.

To take just one example, 'blablabla' can only mean that you have no constructive answer.

To counter one question that you did manage to respond to in an adult fashion, couldn't people on benefits who are seeking employment be given a licence plate without charge?

Now come on. The only real reason you are averse to wearing/displaying a licence plate is so that you can freely ignore the rules of the road and do what the hell you want to do, isn't it?

It can't be the cost, can it? I read earlier that owners of 'green* cars' can pay only £15 a year, so how much would it be for a bike? £5? Isn't £5 worth it to discourage arrogant cyclists from behaving dangerously? Or maybe you think such behaviour is acceptable...

...as long as you're wearing lycra!

*Mine's red, so I have to pay the full whack, I'm afraid.

 

[jockscott]

Oh my, you mean he did exactly what I am saying he should NOT do?

No Aaron, this cyclist done exactly what you were advocating and cycled through a red light. (you yourself said you can't see any reason why we all shouldn't be doing this)
Do you still reckon lights are there purely for traffic management (and not to make the roads a safer environment ?)

PS as for the argument about the secondhand bike market etc. Surely instead of the bicycle being registered, it will be the rider who has to be registered? (and therefore identifiable) That way, he can keep the same rider registration, and ride whatever bicycle he wants.

 

[AronSearle]

No Aaron, this cyclist done exactly what you were advocating and cycled through a red light.

That's not what I am advocating, go back to school and learn to read English, you obviously can't understand how sentences link into each other and provide context.

To take just one example, 'blablabla' can only mean that you have no constructive answer.

No constructive answer to what? I only ignored 2 points you made.

It will penalise the poor, your answer = It will only penalise the arrogant?

How does one constructively answer nonsense?

You suggested number plates on people, really, you expect me to constructively answer that?

To counter one question that you did manage to respond to in an adult fashion, couldn't people on benefits who are seeking employment be given a licence plate without charge?

So you want people on low incomes to be means tested for cycling benefits.

I'm not sure if you are serious, or haven't really thought about the idea and are making it offhand?

It can't be the cost, can it?

The number plate would have to be large enough to be visible, (for you purposes). The physical cost of the number plate £16 pounds, plus minimum £10 for a bracket, maybe £30 pounds for a bracket if it has a low seat, so to accommodate a rack to provide space for lights as well. We will ignore the legal requirement for number plates to be illuminated. Registration, ok let's say that's free, but then we have enforcement, you'll have to carry ID (many low wage people don't have ID, so that's £75 for a card minimum).

So £30 for the plate is manageable for the poor, if they have to buy ID, it's just a kick in the teeth.

But then we have enforcement, despite the irony of labour getting attacked over ID cards, you are now proposing something that would require all cyclists (including children) to carry ID, otherwise it is impossible for the police to police it. And the police would have to randomly stop cyclists, including children (oh god, think of the childreeeeen), and issue fines or confiscate bikes if ID is not provided, Otherwise it will not be in any way enforceable.

The cost to the government for an ID and registration scheme would be millions, the cost of police enforcement, would be millions, and the butthurtt it would stir up over civil liberties would be glorious.

And of course, drivers go through red lights, run people over, drink drive, so it's hardly going to make people who misbehave, behave is it.

Still think it's worth it?

 

[jockscott]

(oh god, think of the childreeeeen)

Still think it's worth it?

Yep,, might stop some kids growing up to be criminals.

Anyway, the cyclist I linked to earlier certainly didn't think of the little girl he ran over at a pedestrian crossing.. Only gave himself up later,, after something niggled his conscience. Had he not come forward, he might never have been found.

As for your point about penalising the poor,,, Utter tosh.. I drive a car and am constantly being penalised by my insurance company, for all the fookin "poor" people who don't bother having car insurance, whilst driving. (They reckon this alone adds around £50 a year on everyone's car insurance)

PS £50 a year might not sound much, but multiplied by the amount of drivers on the road (who do have insurance) estimated at somewhere around 34. million vehicles, and suddenly we're talking about a hell of a lot of money.

 

[Brigadier]

Oh my, you mean he did exactly what I am saying he should NOT do?

No Aaron, this cyclist done exactly what you were advocating and cycled through a red light. (you yourself said you can't see any reason why we all shouldn't be doing this)
Do you still reckon lights are there purely for traffic management (and not to make the roads a safer environment ?)

PS as for the argument about the secondhand bike market etc. Surely instead of the bicycle being registered, it will be the rider who has to be registered? (and therefore identifiable) That way, he can keep the same rider registration, and ride whatever bicycle he wants.

Can you read, jockscott?

Show me / anyone where Aron said anyone can jump a red light without checking it was clear.

Please.

 

[jockscott]

Brigadier,,, I know Aaron isn't advocating recklessly, cycling through red signals. But he does suggest that red lights "could" be ignored, if it's "safe" to do so. He's the one that mentions safety in this context, yet then says signals are not used for safety reasons, rather they are used purely for "traffic management". If everyone obeyed traffic signals, at all times, then surely signalled junctions would be 100% safe? (one thing they will never be if cyclists are allowed to ignore them)