What do you guys think of number plates for cyclists

[AndyCr15]

Yes, the statistics are very interesting indeed.

In urban areas, as a pedestrian, the risk of being killed by a cyclist (On a fatality per million vehicle miles basis) is greater than the risk of being killed by a light commercial vehicle (Yes, "White Van Man", who is also the most likley road user to exceed the posted speed limit. Ho Humm)

Kind of a silly stat as it doesn't actually tell you your chances of being killed by one over the other. How many more miles are clocked up by vehicles over bikes?

Cycling on the public highway does not reduce congestion. It does not reduce fuel consumption, it does not reduce pollution, and it is not particularly benign either

If I ride somewhere instead of driving it, how can it not reduce fuel consumption? (And no, they don't use that amount saved queuing behind me) Again, any facts to support this?

 

[AndyCr15]

A325 between Bordon and Farnham

Sounds like BS to me. I've found one small bit of solid white line so far. Looks a great road to cycle. I feel you're exaggerating somewhat (well, I can see you are).

 

[chaparral]

One thing that annoys me about cyclists is how many ride in the dark without lights....

 

[Dis86]

Yes, the statistics are very interesting indeed.

In urban areas, as a pedestrian, the risk of being killed by a cyclist (On a fatality per million vehicle miles basis) is greater than the risk of being killed by a light commercial vehicle (Yes, "White Van Man", who is also the most likley road user to exceed the posted speed limit. Ho Humm)

Cycling on the public highway does not reduce congestion. It does not reduce fuel consumption, it does not reduce pollution, and it is not particularly benign either

Not even for the cyclists themselves.

(Risk of death per mile traveled is 15-20 times that of driving. This is not only comparable to DUI, it is actually somewhat more dangerous. And dont be too quick to blame everybody else. "Most" cycling casualties do not involve other third parties. most cycling casualties are Cyclists who fall off and cripple/kill themselves entirely on their own)

To tie in with what @SexyGreyFox has said, perhaps that's because people keep stepping out in front of them?
I drive far more miles than I cycle. I've only once had someone walk in front of me in the car since I passed my test 15 years ago. I've lost count of it on the bike since just christmas.
Your stats don't show who was at fault in those collisions you highlight.

https://fullfact.org/health/cyclist-deaths/

More stats for those interested.

 

[Kenai]

Sounds like BS to me. I've found one small bit of solid white line so far. Looks a great road to cycle. I feel you're exaggerating somewhat (well, I can see you are).

You have to account for volume of traffic at certain times of day - i've been stuck behind cyclists on long straight (but narrow) roads, simply because there was so much traffic coming the other way there just wasn't a safe gap to overtake in.

 

[Orionaut]

If I ride somewhere instead of driving it, how can it not reduce fuel consumption? (And no, they don't use that amount saved queuing behind me) Again, any facts to support this?

Actually, they do.

Especially if they are HGV's

An HGV slowing from 40 to 15, and then having to accelerate back to 40 in order to pass the cyclist (Something that may be quite difficult to find an opportunity for on an SC road, hence the long queues) will consume around a third of a Litre of fuel that would not otherwise have been consumed.

Just sit and work it out for your self.

(You may assume that diesel fuel can be converted into mechanical power at the rate of 250Gm/KWhr (It might be a bit better than this, it might be a bit worse. But it is the right ball park))

The effect will be smaller for lighter vehicles, but it will still be there. And since Cyclists interrupt the progress of far larger numbers of lighter vehicles the overall effect is gong to be much the same.

A cyclist on an extra-urban road will likely consume more fuel than he would have done had he been driving.

Environmentally friendly=Fail!

(As I said earlier. I am not opposed to cycling as a means of transport or even leisure. I love off-raod. But it is not a suitable mode for a shared highway. Cycling should be fully segregated. For every-bodies benefit)

 

[Orionaut]

To tie in with what @SexyGreyFox has said, perhaps that's because people keep stepping out in front of them?
I drive far more miles than I cycle. I've only once had someone walk in front of me in the car since I passed my test 15 years ago. I've lost count of it on the bike since just christmas.
Your stats don't show who was at fault in those collisions you highlight.

https://fullfact.org/health/cyclist-deaths/

More stats for those interested.

Ah so its OK to have casualties as long as it is the victims fault?



Overall policy has to take into consideration peoples behaviour.

Statistically, the most dangerous vehicles are indeed Bus's (You know, the "You might be run over by a Bus one day")

Part of this in urban areas is quite likely to be down to Bus lanes.

They are actually so rarely used that Yes! Pedestrians might well walk out into them without looking properly.

But using this to claim that busses/bus lanes are "safe" because it is the victims fault is not really a good argument.

 

[UTmaniac]

A325 between Bordon and Farnham

A Busy SC road in both directions. With several sections of double solid white lines. Stuck behind a selfish git cyclist who will not pull over to let other traffic pass can easily result in traffic queues building up to more then a mile. I have seen it many times. Yesterdays was only a minor example.!



Oh, and PS

Its a bit of a switchback road too.

On the hilly bits one gets the jerks insisting on doing the "Must not stop and walk, must keep pedaling" thing at speeds that are too low for drivers to maintain without having to slip their clutches.

So they are actively damaging other peoples vehicles too!

Out of curiosity, I've just used the Strava route builder between Bordon and Farnham...

The most popular route used by cyclists is an undulating ~9.85 miles with ~731 feet of climbing, passing through Millbridge.

Sticking to the A325, the route is ~8.43 miles and has only ~379 feet of climbing.

I would happily use the former, because I love climbing and I love being off busy roads. Someone less fit and/or with more time constraints will tolerate the A road traffic to reach Farnham quicker and less sweaty.

Cyclists are not actively damaging those clutches, they are not putting a gun to the drivers' heads and forcing them to use their clutch/gears badly and they are not forcing the drivers to use a route which sounds like it is a known congestion hotspot.

Poor self-entitled drivers, can't drive at or beyond the speed limit of the road, the promise of quickly getting from A to B from the 1980s no longer applies... Because too many people use cars for short journeys and are not enough getting enough exercise, leading to a decline in the UK's life expectancy and putting more strain on the NHS.

 

[Dis86]

Ah so its OK to have casualties as long as it is the victims fault?



Overall policy has to take into consideration peoples behaviour.

Statistically, the most dangerous vehicles are indeed Bus's (You know, the "You might be run over by a Bus one day")

Part of this in urban areas is quite likely to be down to Bus lanes.

They are actually so rarely used that Yes! Pedestrians might well walk out into them without looking properly.

But using this to claim that busses/bus lanes are "safe" because it is the victims fault is not really a good argument.

You're missing the point. How will a license plate and tax stop pedestrians walking out in front of bikes? As per the title and OP of this thread.

From all the stats it's pedestrians that need the training and a license to walk! They're the ones at danger and seemingly often at fault!

 

[Orionaut]

You're missing the point. How will a license plate and tax stop pedestrians walking out in front of bikes? As per the title and OP of this thread.

From all the stats it's pedestrians that need the training and a license to walk! They're the ones at danger and seemingly often at fault!

Well, if we go back to the link in the OP, the whole issue came up because Mr Winstone was savagely assaulted by a rogue cyclist after having confronted her over her illegal behaviour and the absence of some sort of number plate meant that he was unable to identify his assailant.

He is suggesting (Not unreasonably) that those who operate vehicles on the public highway should be identifiable, so if they flee accidents or behave in an illegal manor the should be at least a chance of tracking them down and bringing them to book

Pedestrians do not operate vehicles, so this should not apply in the same way for them.

And as I said before, if we really want to think about this logically,

Should individuals (Juveniles) be permitted to operate vehicles or be in control of animals, (IE Horses) on the public highway when they are generally considered not to have either sufficient maturity or responsibility to perform many other tasks. that have far less likley hood to impact on the lives and well being of other peoiple?

 

[FishFluff]

I was in a hurry so was running on the pavement. When I approached the end of the road a cyclist who was riding on the pavement nearly struck me as I crossed his path. He continued to ride away. He didn't even apologise.
No number plate.

Sounds awful. Do you need counselling for all the trauma caused?

 

[Dis86]

Well, if we go back to the link in the OP, the whole issue came up because Mr Winstone was savagely assaulted by a rogue cyclist after having confronted her over her illegal behaviour and the absence of some sort of number plate meant that he was unable to identify his assailant.

He is suggesting (Not unreasonably) that those who operate vehicles on the public highway should be identifiable, so if they flee accidents or behave in an illegal manor the should be at least a chance of tracking them down and bringing them to book

Pedestrians do not operate vehicles, so this should not apply in the same way for them.

And as I said before, if we really want to think about this logically,

Should individuals (Juveniles) be permitted to operate vehicles or be in control of animals, (IE Horses) on the public highway when they are generally considered not to have either sufficient maturity or responsibility to perform many other tasks. that have far less likley hood to impact on the lives and well being of other peoiple?

So as has already been stated, pedestrians are capable of acting illegally on a public highway. Do we have to start putting number plates on pedestrians?
Pedestrians can assault people and then flee. I'd suggest they do it more than cyclists actually!

 

[Orionaut]

So as has already been stated, pedestrians are capable of acting illegally on a public highway. Do we have to start putting number plates on pedestrians?
Pedestrians can assault people and then flee. I'd suggest they do it more than cyclists actually!

Of course they do. But Pedestrians, by definition (*), are not operating vehicles.

(*Well, almost, Back in the day. "Pedestrian controlled vehicles" were actually quite common. They do seem to have fallen out of favour however)

 

[Orionaut]

Kind of a silly stat as it doesn't actually tell you your chances of being killed by one over the other. How many more miles are clocked up by vehicles over bikes?

It isn't a silly stat at all. Surely the most important stat regarding traveling on the highway is the risk/mile!

Sure, more people are going to be run over and killed by WVM than by cyclists, but that is because there are far more WVM and they cover a far greater overall milage.

But that doesn't mean that cyclists are any safer (WVM and Cyclists actualy vie with one another as being the least dangerous vehicle classes on the road interestingly, which also puts the lie to the idea that "Speeding" is a significant factor in RTA's)

 

[lunar]

Sounds awful. Do you need counselling for all the trauma caused?

Not particularly. But let's say if I collided with him and one of us got hurt; that would be a situation

 

[Dis86]

Of course they do. But Pedestrians, by definition (*), are not operating vehicles.

(*Well, almost, Back in the day. "Pedestrian controlled vehicles" were actually quite common. They do seem to have fallen out of favour however)

But why then target cyclists? Shall we hit up pushchairs? Prams? Segway type things? Those carts that obese people drive around in? Those self propelled 2 wheel scooters? They're vehicles. I've seen them all on roads.

Worth adding that whilst a lot of cyclists boil my urine...frigging mothers with push chairs are the worst. Seen them used as battering rams, lost count of how many times some cozy trout has pushed one in to me. And my personal favourite is when they just push them out in to a road hoping traffic stops so they can cross.

 

[Orionaut]

But why then target cyclists? Shall we hit up pushchairs? Prams? Segway type things? Those carts that obese people drive around in? Those self propelled 2 wheel scooters? They're vehicles. I've seen them all on roads.

Worth adding that whilst a lot of cyclists boil my urine...frigging mothers with push chairs are the worst. Seen them used as battering rams, lost count of how many times some cozy trout has pushed one in to me. And my personal favourite is when they just push them out in to a road hoping traffic stops so they can cross.

Since you mention it, people have been seriously injured and even killed by people using mobility scooters.

(And dont get me started on push chairs! )

However, what I am saying is that all vehicles should be treated the same.

Either they should all be registered or none of them should be.

Same should apply with legal consequences.

Even now, despite recent changes in the Law, I think it is still the case that the outcome for the rider is likley to be very different between the cases of running somebody over and killing them at 25MPH while riding a bicycle and running somebody over and killing them at 25MPH while riding a scooter.

The presence or absence of a 50cc petrol engine should really not be making this sort of difference

This is wrong!

 

[Em3bbs]

But why then target cyclists? Shall we hit up pushchairs? Prams? Segway type things? Those carts that obese people drive around in? Those self propelled 2 wheel scooters? They're vehicles. I've seen them all on roads.

You couldn't have picked much worse examples, unless you wanted to disprove your own point

Mobility carts: Need to be registered if they are on the road
Segways: Banned on roads and pavements in the UK
Self Propelled scooters: Banned on roads and pavements in the UK.

Would you like to see the above for bikes? Seems a bit harsh?

 

[Dis86]

Since you mention it, people have been seriously injured and even killed by people using mobility scooters.

(And dont get me started on push chairs! )

However, what I am saying is that all vehicles should be treated the same.

Either they should all be registered or none of them should be.

Same should apply with legal consequences.

Even now, despite recent changes in the Law, I think it is still the case that the outcome for the rider is likley to be very different between the cases of running somebody over and killing them at 25MPH while riding a bicycle and running somebody over and killing them at 25MPH while riding a scooter.

The presence or absence of a 50cc petrol engine should really not be making this sort of difference

This is wrong!

Lol. Whilst I don't agree I can see your argument and at least it's consistent! My personal cut off would be self propelled vs motorised.

 

[AndyCr15]

Actually, they do.

Especially if they are HGV's

An HGV slowing from 40 to 15, and then having to accelerate back to 40 in order to pass the cyclist (Something that may be quite difficult to find an opportunity for on an SC road, hence the long queues) will consume around a third of a Litre of fuel that would not otherwise have been consumed.

Just sit and work it out for your self.

(You may assume that diesel fuel can be converted into mechanical power at the rate of 250Gm/KWhr (It might be a bit better than this, it might be a bit worse. But it is the right ball park))

The effect will be smaller for lighter vehicles, but it will still be there. And since Cyclists interrupt the progress of far larger numbers of lighter vehicles the overall effect is gong to be much the same.

A cyclist on an extra-urban road will likely consume more fuel than he would have done had he been driving.

Environmentally friendly=Fail!

(As I said earlier. I am not opposed to cycling as a means of transport or even leisure. I love off-raod. But it is not a suitable mode for a shared highway. Cycling should be fully segregated. For every-bodies benefit)

So given that -

a) the whole route for me to the gym are 20 or 30 zones, so no slowing from 40 and back up again
b) not once was a HGV held up behind me this morning on my ride to the gym
c) I drive a 4.6 ltr V8

I'd be fairly sure I've just been much more environmentally friendly.

I would add, I am hardly ever held up by cyclists when I'm driving. Much more likely a pedestrian crossing (they must really guzzle fuel from a HGV, how are they even legal!) traffic lights, slow moving cars, cars turning right... the effect of cyclists around me is next to nothing.