SkodaMart
S
SkodaMart
Who cares?
Good luck to him.
Number plates for cyclists...
- Thread starter Uther
- Start date
Good luck to him.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2021
- Posts
- 1,391
- Location
- Sowerby Bridge
When you do any modifications to your car you have to tell your insurance , riding a illegal bike it's potentially dangerous to himself to others as well.
there's always one.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2021
- Posts
- 4,590
- Location
- Land of Gin (I wish)
One way streets and traffic lights apply to cyclists too. Lost count in the near misses I have witnessed
its not semantics, most bicycles dont have a speedo so how would they know how fast they are going. Those that are serious cyclists that have cycling computers sure but I doubt that is the majority.
by getting one?
You've taken a part of my post and applied it out of context. You may want to read it again.
The "semantics" angle was in reference to myself and touch's difference of opinion on whether it was merely apply current road rules in relation to speeding or if it's creating a new rule... It had nothing to do with how to make it work.
You do raise a good point regarding how cyclists could monitor their speed however people's refusal to install and use such a device shouldn't prevent the introduction of laws to increase safety nor to have it imposed on these people... Where would H&S laws be with that thinking
So you are making it law you have to fit a speedo. Cheap ones (unless you force people to buy expensive GPS units) use a magnet that fits to the spokes with a sensor on the frame which people can mess with to alter the speed, so now do you insist on an MOT to validate the accuracy of the speedo as well?
why not?
Yes, that's fair.
I don't see any need for bicycle speed limits for a few reasons:
-It's only in rare circumstances where bicycles can reach the car speed limits (I know fit cyclists can do 20mph fairly easily but the areas where there are 20mph limits usually have a lot of street furniture and traffic so there's more to it than just fitness)
-A car has about 20x as much momentum as a bicycle at the same speed so can do significantly more damage. (assumed that average weight of car + occupants + contents is about 2000kg and average weight of bicycle + rider + backpack is about 100kg)
-If you crash a bicycle, you're much more likely to get hurt than if you crash a car at the same speed so there's already a big incentive for bicycle riders not to go too fast.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,312
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
When cyclists cause as much death & destruction that drivers cause then perhaps it would be a good idea.
Cyclist goes through a red light they are only going to hurt themselves if they get hit, a driver goes through and we all know what happens.
Out of about 400 pedestrians killed every year I read about 2.5 (!) are killed by cyclists.
www.theguardian.com
Cyclist goes through a red light they are only going to hurt themselves if they get hit, a driver goes through and we all know what happens.
Out of about 400 pedestrians killed every year I read about 2.5 (!) are killed by cyclists.
Killer cyclists? Let’s not forget the real threat on our roads | Laura Laker
People on bikes do stupid things. But 99% of pedestrian collision deaths in Britain involve a motorised vehicle. A dangerous cycling law won’t solve our problems, says cycling writer Laura Laker
www.theguardian.com
Apologies I wasnt clear. I believe it is a new rule as the law for speeding covers motorised vehicles not self propelled vehicles, therefore it isnt a case of semantics. Bicycles are not covered by the speeding law so it isnt just a case of extending current law
Who's safety are you taking about anyway, the idea of speeding for bicycles isnt about safety, its about I cant get away with it so why should they. There is no evidence that slowing down cyclists would prevent deaths of pedestrians as pedestrians killed by cyclists tend to be people either riding inconsiderately on the pavement or pedestrians not paying attention and crossing the road without looking
@touch and @Bear
Fair points. I'm guessing that the cyclists doing 20mph+ are in the minority currently (who knows where e-bikes etc will end up as time goes on).
I do still believe some form of highly visible identification should be seriously considered to help deter some cyclists from doing whatever they like without fear of being caught.
It's all well and good @SexyGreyFox using a very specific example (road deaths) as an argument however things like failing to obey other relevant laws or causing damage to other vehicles may be lowered if the cyclist is aware they can be identified.
Example - if the cyclists fails to stop at a red light and gets hit by a car (non fatal) - yes, they will come worse off physically but does that negate the potential psychological harm to the driver or any repair costs to the car?
Of course, you won't prevent them all. Some motorists and cyclists won't care that they can be identified and will still drive/cycle like an idiot but if it can reduce the instances by changing the behaviour of some, then that's a good thing.
Fair points. I'm guessing that the cyclists doing 20mph+ are in the minority currently (who knows where e-bikes etc will end up as time goes on).
I do still believe some form of highly visible identification should be seriously considered to help deter some cyclists from doing whatever they like without fear of being caught.
It's all well and good @SexyGreyFox using a very specific example (road deaths) as an argument however things like failing to obey other relevant laws or causing damage to other vehicles may be lowered if the cyclist is aware they can be identified.
Example - if the cyclists fails to stop at a red light and gets hit by a car (non fatal) - yes, they will come worse off physically but does that negate the potential psychological harm to the driver or any repair costs to the car?
Of course, you won't prevent them all. Some motorists and cyclists won't care that they can be identified and will still drive/cycle like an idiot but if it can reduce the instances by changing the behaviour of some, then that's a good thing.
No, the argument here is that bad driving is 100x more likely to result in death or serious injury and yet very little punishment is meted out to drivers who behave in this way. The idea that cyclists should be the target of any measures to improve road safety is frankly laughable when they do so little to protect vulnerable road users from cars.
Its the fact that this is nothing but bait for the worst parts of society to vent their anti-cyclist views. I have never felt in danger from a cyclist in my entire life. I feel at risk at least a few times every single time I go out on my bike. I feel at risk from cars when I am walking or crossing a road and I feel risk from other cars when I am driving.
Cyclists are sick of people making out like they are the big issue on our roads, not the frankly awful standards of driving in this country. They are sick of feeling like they are taking their lives into their own hands every time they get on a bike. They are sick of infrastructure completely ignoring them or quite often making it more difficult and dangerous to cycle.
Unsurprisingly when ideas suggesting they should be treated like a car but without any of the protection or infrastructure cars enjoy is put forwards, we get a little narky. There is no issue with amending the law to punish cyclists when they do something that injures or kills someone.
The issue is trying to make it less and less attractive for people to get on their bikes when we as a country are a bunch of fat ***** and our car use is massively damaging to the environment.
I can kind of agree on insurance and I have third party insurance for myself. I wouldnt want to be out of pocket if a bicycle hit my car so I dont expect anyone else to be out of pocket if I hit their car by accident. That said, the only thing holding me back on mandatory insurance is that it would pretty much stop kids from riding bikes, I used to ride my bike everywhere when I was a kid, it was a great source of freedom at little to no cost. Getting your first bike was a rite of passage
When cyclists cause as much death & destruction that drivers cause then perhaps it would be a good idea.
Cyclist goes through a red light they are only going to hurt themselves if they get hit, a driver goes through and we all know what happens.
Out of about 400 pedestrians killed every year I read about 2.5 (!) are killed by cyclists.
Killer cyclists? Let’s not forget the real threat on our roads | Laura Laker
People on bikes do stupid things. But 99% of pedestrian collision deaths in Britain involve a motorised vehicle. A dangerous cycling law won’t solve our problems, says cycling writer Laura Laker
I would love to know how many of the driving related pedestrian deaths are deemed the drivers fault and how many of the cyclists ones. When I am cycling in areas with pedestrians I have to be super careful because so many people don't even look before they walk out. I assume because they can't hear a car coming and don't bother to look. I've had more near misses with pedestrians in 6 months on my bike than in 6 years of driving.
Go read the DM comments on the article and tell me that many of them aren't the worst parts of society.
no, i'd rather not. the conversation/debate that you posted that statement in is taking place within the OcUK forum. i've not seen anyone on here post anything that makes them look like the worst parts of society?
Will we be seeing coppers giving out on the spot fines to 8 year olds for doing wheelies and having an under sized number plate
