i'll make a point of running you over.
Number plates for cyclists...
- Thread starter Uther
- Start date
They are legal*. Like he said in the post you quoted, they would come under moped/motorbike regulations.
*but it's almost impossible to get a bicycle to pass that regulation so that's why almost all ebikes will stay under the power limit and remain classed as assisted bicycles.
I always wear a helmet when cycling but theres enough research out there that show that helmets arent as useful as you would expect. Firstly, it was found that drivers passed closer if the rider was wearing a helmet (risk compensation), oddly if the rider had long flowing hair, drivers would give more space probably because they thought it was a woman. Secondly, people that wear helmets tended to get a false sense of security and took more risks as a result. Thirdly, helmets arent designed to mitigate against impacts by motor vehicles
Car drivers are not identified either.
The registered keeper is linked to the number plate but that doesn’t tell you who is driving it.
We target things because they are dangerous. I can assure you that if I ran a red light and hit your car, you could sue me for the damage to your car. If you ran a red light in your car and hit me I could claim off your insurance if i'm not dead. See the difference.
Considering the awful standards of driving that lead to countless crashes, deaths and injuries and we have number plates etc, why do you think anything would change if we put number plates on bikes. Its become a meme in the cycling community. Send the police a video of a car nearly knocking you off your bike and watch them do nothing or completely disregard it in most cases. Reporting someone without proof on camera will get you nowhere and reporting someone with video proof probably won't do much.
If you made every cyclist obey the laws of the road tomorrow you would save a few lives a year. If you made every driver do the same you would save thousands. This is why going after cyclists is stupid. This is how policy should always work. You go for the things that will have the biggest positive effect in the area you are targeting - which is road safety. If thats what you are doing then cyclists shouldn't even be spoken about until car drivers sort themselves out.
Oh and on the topic of cyclists going through red lights, I see way more cars do it than cyclists and lets be honest, they aren't getting punished for it unless a cop happens to be right there or they are stupid enough to do it on lights with a camera.
Some drivers have a victim complex and thing that cyclists get away with everything. They don't. Drivers get away with waaaaaay more and are driving a 2 tonne death machine instead of a 100kg machine going a fraction of the speed.
Not sure if this is a genuine question or the setup for a joke?
On the slim chance it's the former - if a cyclist knocks your mirror off while filtering through stationary traffic, and cycles off into the distance, how do you propose to identify them and then report to the police for hit and run and then claim from their insurance or start a legal claim against them for the costs?
Contrast that with a car knocking your mirror off by passing too close, and they have a nice yellow plastic sign on the back which (should) make it easy to track them* down
*(or at least the registered keeper)
How? You've just ridden off down the road and I have no way of identifying you.
You're missing the point - the 2 aren't mutually exclusive. Going after bad cyclists doesn't mean NOT going after bad drivers also.
As long as you have a camera recording them. Otherwise you have to follow them and hope they admit to it. You are making out like a numberplate is some sort of guaranteed identification that is automatically beamed to your car when something happens.
I'm not sure how you think I am riding off down the road after I have hit your car or you have just hit me. My bike has a very high probability of being damaged beyond riding and I have a very high chance of being injured.
Putting resources and money towards going after cyclists will take money and resources away from going after drivers. So yes, yes it does. And as I have explained. One will make a massive difference to safety and the other one will be almost irrelevant.
Yes I do.
Sounds like you need a sturdier bike - I've had several "altercations" with crap drivers, most of which resulted in more damage to their car than my bike
Given the current level of road policing, I'm not sure it would make much difference, but I guess we'll have to disagree on that one.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
People too busy frothing at the mouth over cyclists, distracting them from the £5,500 energy bills coming soon and 10.1% inflation rate.
The vast majority of cars just drive off as quickly as possible. Watched one the other day, proper smashed into a parked cars mirror as I was walking past and he sped off into the distance. Saw the driver again a minute later checking his car outside my house.
The idea that car drivers are holier then thou because of a series of numbers and letters stamped to the back of the car is as laughable as the idea that the few cyclists who can hold a speed significantly above 20mph for any reasonable amount of time is worth doing anything about.
who's got the idea that car drivers are holier than thou because of number plates? pretty sure most people agree that car drivers can be grade A plumbs.
It's nothing to do with being "holier than thou". There are **** drivers and **** cyclists, both of whom will damage your car/you and then do a runner. Only one of those can currently be (relatively) easily identified.
As somebody who regularly walks down a local towpath with his 3 year old son I can attest to the fact that a minority of cyclists are complete and utter idiots, just as cyclists can attest to the fact a minority of car drivers are too. Personally I would'nt mind a way to easily identify a lycra clad lunatic on a bike just as easily as I can do with a car. As for insurance - I would imagine most responsible cyclists have it anyway and frankly can't see any reason why it should'nt be mandatory.
This basically.
This basically.
+1 on this. Making what's currently the cheapest and healthiest form of transport more expensive right now seems like it's being done with the intention of distraction. Plus I'm sure the govenernment and treasury can see the number of car drivers they can milk for taxes diminishing once people realise how easily and cheaply the can get around on personal electric transport.
Though I'm sure many will agree that something needs done about electic bikes and scooters flagrantly breaking the law.
Ultimately, it's about the level of damage one can cause someone else. Cyclists cause very little harm or damage and the net benefit from cycling far outweighs any damage or perceived damage cycling causes. Currently, cows kill more people than cyclists each year.
This is just a culture war piece of nonsense that certain parts of the media are trying to whip up to deflect from real issues. Interestingly, Grant Schnapps has already dismissed the notion, but we are still banging on about it because some people make it their life's obsession to hate people who choose to get around on a push bike.
The only country in the whole world that makes it compulsory for cyclists to have a means of identification is North Korea, which isn't exactly a great example.
This is just a culture war piece of nonsense that certain parts of the media are trying to whip up to deflect from real issues. Interestingly, Grant Schnapps has already dismissed the notion, but we are still banging on about it because some people make it their life's obsession to hate people who choose to get around on a push bike.
The only country in the whole world that makes it compulsory for cyclists to have a means of identification is North Korea, which isn't exactly a great example.
Moving from a cycle hating country to a more sensible one the UK will never change because it seems to be a uniquely British attitude that Anyone but car drivers should not be on their roads....
Here in Sweden, at least my part, cars are kinda at the bottom level of the food chain when it comes to urban driving, pedestrians being top then cyclists close 2nd.
Cycling countries have spent decades adapting their infrastructure to cope with it all. UK doesn't have a chance..
Here in Sweden, at least my part, cars are kinda at the bottom level of the food chain when it comes to urban driving, pedestrians being top then cyclists close 2nd.
Cycling countries have spent decades adapting their infrastructure to cope with it all. UK doesn't have a chance..
The probem, in London at least, is that they went to extreme lengths to shoehorn them in to the existing road networks. They'd shut off roads for months (or even years, just look at Old Street Roundabout which started four years ago and was due to finish in 2019). The amount of half-baked ideas and absolute bottom drawer crap that TFL and the councils come up with to force things to happen so they can tick their little box with no regard to the consequences, other road users or even the cyclists themselves (as evidenced by the many dangerous crossings in London) is just ridiculous.
Sadly a few people went in with good intentions, then the box ticking, backhander receiving, completely inept and incompetent morons get involved and what could've been something to be proud of is now the laughing stock of Europe.
GG Mayor of London, GG.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,311
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I have tried to explain but here goes again:
On my 250 watt 15.5mph eBike I don't need MOT, Insurance, a Reg plate or to pay any tax (although I wouldn't have to pay under VED rules) and I can ride on cycle lanes, paths etc which are 80% of my commute.
If I rode a 1000 watt eBike I should have MOT, Insurance and a Reg plate and won't be able to ride on cycle lanes, paths etc.
I like going at 15mph or 24mph if I pedal harder and not be tied down.