Cycle numberplate

[empip]

Ken hates 4wd. .... He is about to target --- bicycles !

CYCLISTS in London could be made to fit numberplates to their bikes under plans being drawn up by Ken Livingstone, the capital's mayor.
All bicycles would be registered so that riders breaking the law, by cycling on pavements or going through red lights, could be caught on traffic cameras. Mr Livingstone is also investigating a possible ban on jaywalking, which is illegal in some countries...
Mr Livingstone was responding to a listener's question about what the mayor would do to stop cyclists using the capital's pavements.

He added:'You've got to have legislation, but I think, most likely we'll look at putting up what's called a private Bill and I think I can get the London boroughs - all of them, irrespective of parties - to most likely go along with that and have a proper vehicle/bicycle registration.'
Asked if that meant licence plates for bicycles, he said: 'Yes, so you can catch the ones - the ones that are obeying the law, it makes no difference - but the ones who are going over red lights, driving on pavements, you get 'em'...

We are a warlike race - torture, beatings and fines by proxy !
Far more by those with their roots in the left wing of politics ... Learned through union mismanagement I guess.

 

[joe-90]

it sounds like a good idea to me - and they should pay road tax.

 

[WoodYouLike]

it sounds like a good idea to me - and they should pay road tax.

Even children??
How on earth do you get people out of their cars on bikes if you start taxing them? Road tax is (officially) to contribute for road maintenance, how much does a push-bike weight?

 

[empip]

And whilst our lawmen chase them down .. because it is easy money, the Peeler's available resource dwindles even faster ! Unless you post a notice like this :- "Our dogs are fed on Jehovah's Witnesses", which ensures a rapid deployment and virtual cuff around the lug-ole ... In the doghouse

 

[Glassman]

it sounds like a good idea to me - and they should pay road tax.

A lot of cyclists are also car-owners, so do already contribute to road tax.

Also, I believe that there are insurance companies about who insure cyclists although this is not compulsary at the moment.

A lot of hard-core cyclists take out their own insurance to cover themselves against serious injury but it does also cover damage to other people vehicles.

I suppose we should be asking if cycle insurance should be compulsary to all who ride on public roads?

 

[joe-90]

it sounds like a good idea to me - and they should pay road tax.

Even children??
How on earth do you get people out of their cars on bikes if you start taxing them? Road tax is (officially) to contribute for road maintenance, how much does a push-bike weight?

Why shouldn't they? They get in everybody's way holding up hundreds of cars day and night - all who contribute far more in pollution because of the cyclist holding them up.
Let them have cycle lanes that are paid for by the cyclist.

 

[WoodYouLike]

I suppose we should be asking if cycle insurance should be compulsary to all who ride on public roads?

Horses, prams also?
Doesn't your normal liability insurance cover you for incidents/accidents you cause by taking part in traffic (any which way)? Why always a new kind of insurance for every crazy thing thought of??

 

[WoodYouLike]

Let them have cycle lanes that are paid for by the cyclist.

Ever cycled in the country? Where every adding of utility supply lines has to be cut into the road because there is no 'proper' free area next to the road to install them their? Ownership of land right next to the road. You want to confiscate that land I suppose for the purpose of laying cycle-roads?

 

[Glassman]

Horses, prams also?
Doesn't your normal liability insurance cover you for incidents/accidents you cause by taking part in traffic (any which way)? Why always a new kind of insurance for every crazy thing thought of??

Why not? The road is a dangerous place. Why use it and not have the insurance to cover yourself in an accident?

In my opinion horses shouldn't be on the road at all and if you ask most equestrian types, most of them would agree because riding a horse on a hard surface like tarmac actually damages the horses legs over time. I think it splinters their leg bones or summat like that?
Im fine with horses using the grass verges and country walking routes but why should they endanger themselves and others by using the roads? I'd imagine apart from anything else it must be stressful for the horse anyway to have traffic whizzing past every few seconds?

 

[WoodYouLike]

Horses, prams also?
Doesn't your normal liability insurance cover you for incidents/accidents you cause by taking part in traffic (any which way)? Why always a new kind of insurance for every crazy thing thought of??

Why not? The road is a dangerous place. Why use it and not have the insurance to cover yourself in an accident?

That's what I meant, aren't you covert by this with your normal liability insurance (or is it different once again here as supposed to mainland Europe where personal liability insurance is compulsory - and therefore included in your home insurance, including your children).

[In my opinion horses shouldn't be on the road at all a........ I'd imagine apart from anything else it must be stressful for the horse anyway to have traffic whizzing past every few seconds?

Oh, I quite agree with you, but country roads are small and lack the availability (ownership of verges) to widen them for horses, cyclist, walkers etc. And where do you find most horses, walkers, cyclist etc? In the country.
You can't charge people using 'normal' methods (horses, cycling, walking) if you don't provide the means = safer roads where cycling/walking is not interfering with car traffic by creating cycle lanes, walking lanes etc. It's just not feasible in this 'historic' country that is England (UK)

 

[joe-90]

Let them have cycle lanes that are paid for by the cyclist.

Ever cycled in the country? Where every adding of utility supply lines has to be cut into the road because there is no 'proper' free area next to the road to install them their? Ownership of land right next to the road. You want to confiscate that land I suppose for the purpose of laying cycle-roads?

Ban cycles where there is no cycle path.

 

[WoodYouLike]

Let them have cycle lanes that are paid for by the cyclist.

Ever cycled in the country? Where every adding of utility supply lines has to be cut into the road because there is no 'proper' free area next to the road to install them their? Ownership of land right next to the road. You want to confiscate that land I suppose for the purpose of laying cycle-roads?

Ban cycles where there is no cycle path.

Why?

 

[joe-90]

They get in the way.

 

[WoodYouLike]

They get in the way.

Not good enough a reason. Cars get in the way on housing estates, ban them there?
Cycling should be encouraged, stop pollutions, get healthier people and children. But cycling should be made safe also, which is nine times out of ten impossible the way roads are constructed here. Still no reason to ban them cause you as car driver can't or won't for that matter anticipate other traffic.

 

[joe-90]

That's the whole problem To get past the bike you have to pull over to the other side of the road. If traffic is heading your way you have to guess what speed they are doing. That's dangerous. If you are on a blind bend - impossible. They are a menace and should be removed.