Buying Valium, Valium Real 10 Milligram, Valium Intestinal Bleeding, Valium Otc China, Valium 10, Valium Drug Per State, Ativan Versus Valium, Valium Fast, Panama Valium, Cheap Valium, Valium For Dizziness, Personal Ratings On Generic Valium Diazepam, Priceless Valium Wine, Mocha Vodka Valium Latte, Valium For Felines, Valium Sedation, Can You Snort Valium, Valium Description, Folic Acid Valium, Grapefruit Juice Valium, Which Is Stronger Xanax Or Valium, Valium Without Prescription, Ordering Valium Without Prescription, Valium Pill Image, Picture Of The Pill Valium, Is Flexeril Like Valium - FDA Checked Pharmacy
The pros and cons of bicycle registration and licensing of cyclists.
Buying Valium,
"You don't pay road tax" is just one of many arguments used against cyclists by some motorists. Another is "you all ride through red lights" and "you all ride on pavements." Now, a simple tit-for-tat response would be to reply that motorists routinely drive through stop-lights on red; and the motorists' habit of parking on footways is now so commonplace it's seen as standard. However, two wrongs don't make a right so, instead of digital fisticuffs, now that 'reining in scofflaw cyclists' is such a hot topic, how about examining some of the motorists' arguments about compulsory registration and licensing for bicycles?
THEY DO IT IN OTHER COUNTRIES
It's true. Some countries have bicycle registration and licence schemes. In Switzerland, it's compulsory to have a CHF-5-10 'Velo Vignette' (bike sticker) 'license' but as well as being a registration scheme it's a way of getting cyclists to purchase third-party liability insurance. However, at the end of March 2010, the Swiss parliament started to debate whether to abolish the licenses, Buying Valium. Valium real 10 milligram, Some political parties said the costs of the scheme far outstrip the revenue.
All bicycles sold in Japan are registered with the local government as an anti-theft measure.
Lots of countries used to have bike badge registration schemes: from Argentina to the Seychelles. In fact, the little tin badges are collectible, and can be found on specialist websites and on eBay. Buying Valium, The schemes were discontinued for the same reason dog licences were discontinued in the UK: administration of the schemes, such as the bicycle licensing by-law in Toronto (created in 1935, ditched in 1957 and suggested but rejected in 1984, 1992 and 1996), always costs way more than the income.
Jersey is looking into registration of cyclists but as the Deputy of the States - Jersey's parliament - made a major gaffe in his submission, it's unlikely the idea will get off the ground.
But, for sake of argument, if a bike registration scheme was reintroduced, how much should cyclists pay, valium intestinal bleeding. It could be argued cyclists ought to be paid by the state to cycle. OK, that's not going to fly, so how about if cycle licensing costs £0.
That's how much it costs in Milwaukee, Buying Valium. Residents are required to obtain a license for each bike they own. The scheme appears to be mostly a deterrent to bicycle theft, similar to the voluntary bicycle registration schemes in the UK such as BikeRegister.com.
Despite having the most cyclists in Europe, neither the Netherlands nor Denmark have bicycle licensing schemes. Copenhagenize.com's Mikael Colville-Anderson said licensing of bicycles is "folly":
"There's no licensing here. Buying Valium, I've heard from city officials in a number of cities that they have worked out the cost of a bike licensing scheme and none of them have found it cost efficient. Valium otc china, Toronto was one of the cities."
"No licensing scheme here. I did a bit of research with cycle organisations Fietsberaad and Fietsersbond on whether it has ever been suggested in the past, but couldn't find any reference."
The argument "they do it in other countries" doesn't hold water: other countries in Europe recognise the EU Fifth Motoring Directive, the insurance concept that motorists are always deemed to at fault in crashes with pedestrians or cyclists, but the UK has chosen not to opt in to this critical piece of road safety legislation (and the mainstream press can be whipped up into a frenzy of hate when the idea is broached).
IF BIKES HAD NUMBER PLATES, CYCLISTS WOULD BE SCOFFLAWS NO MORE
Er, like car registration plates stop motorists from speeding, talking on mobile phones and blowing through red lights.
The cyclists most likely to break traffic rules (rules, it has to be said, valium 10, designed to lessen the lethal potential of motorised vehicles and moderate the bad behaviour of motorists) are those most likely not to wander into the Post Office for bicycle licences and third-party insurance.
[Young lads, for instance, Buying Valium. And it's young lads who don't buy car insurance either. According to the Motor Insurers' Bureau, of the 1.2 million drivers aged 17-20, a whopping 243,000 (20 percent) are believed to be driving without insurance.]
When he was still mayor, Ken Livingstone said he would introduce bicycle operator licences for London cyclists.
"I think I'm now persuaded we should actually say that bikes and their owners, should be registered. There should be a number plate on the back so that the ones breaking the law, Valium drug per state, we can get them off the cameras."
Bicycles with number plates big enough to be read by traffic cameras. Buying Valium, The idea was dropped.
If a pedestrian or driver spotted a youth doing something illegal on a number plated bike, what would the police do with that information. Likely, nothing. Because that's what they do for pretty much all 'minor' highway infractions. Try this at home: ring the police and report a speeding car. Give the number plate and say you saw the driver doing 40mph in a 30mph zone, Buying Valium. What do you think the reaction would be.
Even with GATSO cameras it's not a dead cert that a speeding motorist will be nabbed. There's lots of wriggle room, and plenty of lawyers happy to be paid to do the wriggling.
Go to the police with just a license plate number and expect short shrift: whether that plate is on a car or a bicycle, ativan versus valium. Buying Valium, But why stop at cars and bicycles. Why not prams. Or horses. Or pedestrians.
MOTOR VEHICLES ARE LICENSED FOR GOOD REASON
To drive a car in the UK you must be licensed, must pass a test and be 17 or over. To ride a bike you merely have to balance, Buying Valium. Children aren't allowed to drive cars, but they are allowed to ride bikes for the simple reason that bicycles are not killing machines. No-one in their right mind would allow an eight year old to drive a car on the public highway, but children, quite rightly, Valium fast, are allowed to ride bicycles on the public highway.
If a licensing system were brought in, would children have to have 'child cycling licences'. At what age would the cut off be. Buying Valium, 16, 8, 4. If children were exempt from licensing, would that preclude them from using roads on their bicycles. It's already happening: in the name of safety, a school in Watford has linked up with the police to create 'bike passports' for pedalling pupils.
"Any pupil who fails to meet...conditions will not get a bike passport and will not be allowed to cycle to school."
One of the reasons for Toronto not reinstigating its bicycle registration bylaw was the netting of children. The City said "licensing of bicycles [should] be discontinued because it often results in an unconscious contravention of the law at a very tender age; they also emphasize the resulting poor public relations between police officers and children."
Motor vehicles are licensed because of the threat they pose to other road users. Motorists who drive recklessly can cause severe damage to property and people, yet, because of airbags and crumple zones, can climb out of their vehicle unscathed, Buying Valium. Cyclists who ride recklessly risk, for the most part, panama valium, only their own life and limb. Hit a car; risk death. Hit a pedestrian; risk serious injury. Cyclists pay attention; self-preservation polices itself.
Buying Valium, BEFORE A LICENCE IS GRANTED, CYCLISTS WOULD NEED TO SIT A TEST
Many beginner cyclists lack basic skills, and their road sense leaves a lot to be desired. But cycling is a tough teacher: get it wrong on the road and you're toast. Cyclists therefore have to get skilled quickly.
Training sessions would help in this regard and - with Bikeability – such sessions are more widely available than ever before. But it isn't compulsory for motorists to take driving lessons: all they need do is pass a test.
OK, so why shouldn't cyclists have to pass a test, Buying Valium. Simple: cyclists do not operate heavy, powerful, Cheap valium, fast, frequently-lethal machines. Cyclists, like pedestrians and equestrians, use the road by right of way. Drivers use it under licence. Under licence because, unfettered, drivers are dangerous. Buying Valium, Heck, even with loads of rules and regulations, drivers still cause the roads to be dangerous for other road users.
In 1998, 904 pedestrians and cyclists in the UK were killed by motor vehicles; two were killed by bikes. In 2001, valium for dizziness, 825 people were killed by motor vehicles; none by bikes. In 2004, 669 by cars; one by bike. The highest level of deaths was in 1999 when five pedestrians were killed by bikes. In same year, 863 were killed by cars, Buying Valium. Yes, there's a very good reason why motorised vehicles are licensed, and bicycle aren't. (And, of those deaths caused by cyclists, only about one every four years is of a pedestrian struck on a footway; most of the rest of the time it's pedestrians hit by cyclists on the road and, Personal ratings on generic valium diazepam, as every bike rider knows, pedestrians seem not to realise getting hit by a cyclist is gonna hurt).
Restrictions on the rights of motorists have a long history because the danger posed by cars has a long history.
PAY TO GET 'SEAT AT THE TABLE'
This is probably the most persuasive argument for bicycle licensing and bicycle excise taxes. If cyclists paid a bit of cash each year it would get motorists off our backs: we could say 'but we do payBuying Valium, for taking away 'your' parking spaces for bike lanes.'
Thing is, we already do pay. Bicycle infrastructure is paid for by general and local taxation, not 'road' tax. Motorists may feel they get no benefit from bicycle infrastructure they wrongly assume they've paid for via 'road' tax but there are lots of examples of tax payers' money going on amenities only a portion of the community will benefit from. Schools, for instance. Child-less tax-payers pay for facilities they'll never use. Hospitals: stay healthy and you'll never get the benefits from your tax money, Buying Valium. Motorways: cyclists aren't allowed on them, but adult cyclist tax-payers still pay for them, priceless valium wine.
Nevertheless, asking cyclists to pay a token amount - a pedalling peppercorn - is something that will come up time and time again. Being able to wave a piece of paper proving there's been a payment is something many cyclists would welcome. On another story on iPayRoadTax.com, 'Neilwheel' writes:
"I cycle a lot on the canals. Buying Valium, Come summer, hardly a ride goes past without someone coming out with the 'cyclists don't have any right to be on the towpath' line. But up my sleeve I've got a British Waterways Cycle Permit. Most people have never heard of, let alone seen, a canals bike permit. It's an instant shutter-upper. Mocha vodka valium latte, "A Band A tax discs for bikes would have the same effect. Rather than save the government money, the scheme should be argued for, Buying Valium. Plus you have a National Cycle Register at no extra charge. Call for the 'disc' to be an embedded chip and you've also got an theft deterrent.
"Play them at their own game, that's what I say."
But "paying our way" with usage fees or taxes creates a pot of cash that, were it to be ringfenced for bicycle infrastructure, could become seen as the only pot of cash for cycling. The fund would never be big enough. Buying Valium, Thing is, cyclists do already pay some cash. The UK bicycle industry has a levy fund. It's called BikeHub: a tiny fraction of the money spent in bike shops goes into this fund and helps pay for pro-cycling programmes such as cycling-to-school initiative Bike It, and Bike Week. Paying for infrastructure is a whole different level of funding and requires tax-payer's cash: just as road building and maintenance requires tax-payer cash, valium for felines.
FORGET LICENCES, WE NEED RECOGNITION IN LAW Bicycling's Bob Mionske feels that calls for licensing of cyclists and the erosion of our rights to the road "are vindictive in nature, and rooted in a deep-seated desire to remove us from the roads." He wants recognition for cyclists:
First, policies that promote the safe integration and expansion of cycling into our transportation infrastructure must not only be adopted, they must also be implemented. Second, traffic laws should be sensible, actually recognizing and reflecting that the needs of cyclists are different from the needs of motorists, Buying Valium. Third, the traffic laws need to be enforced, by officers who actually understand the laws they are enforcing, with attention shifted away from petty violations, and focused instead on the most dangerous violations. Valium sedation, Finally, when cyclists are injured or killed by negligent drivers, the statutes, and enforcement, should reflect the seriousness of the incident, with law enforcement attention directed to the behavior that actually caused the harm.
LICENSING CYCLISTS WILL LEAD TO FEWER CYCLISTS
Perhaps that's the actual goal of those who want registration and licensing schemes. But cycling ought to be encouraged, not stifled. Cycling is clean, quiet and green. Buying Valium, It's healthier than sitting in a car. More cyclists equals less urban congestion.
MORE CONS THAN PROS
A national bicycle registration and cyclist licensing scheme would cost a lot more to run than it would bring in; would fail to prevent traffic law transgressions; and would mainly serve as a barrier to greater levels of cycling.
And this, deep down, is what many motorists probably want. They want us out of "their" way, off "their" roads, Buying Valium. Cyclists are pesky and slow, goes the unthinking thinking. They ride two or more abreast; they wear Lycra; they slow down legitimate - ie motorised – road traffic.
Those who want cyclists to be registered, want them to display their registration details on big number plates. Valium description, They may also want bikes to carry signal indicators. Buying Valium, Maybe another two wheels would be good, too. And an engine. Oh, hang on, that's a car.
When you hear a call for bicycle licensing and excise taxes ("just pennies a day, why would you object to that?") it's not a call for fair-play, it's a call to drive everywhere.
Those who want cyclists to be registered, pay 'road' tax and apply for licences to cycle don't want to share the road with lots of licensed, fee-paying cyclists, they want less cyclists full-stop, folic acid valium. The 'no pay, no say' crowd would use any payment as a "but you don't pay enough" argument, Buying Valium.
---------------
Now, for something completely different. Sort of.
Bicycle licences would be costly to produce and administer, one of the reasons dog licences were discontinued. Ditto for cat licences. Buying Valium, Cat licences. No such thing of course, just an excuse to embed a video of a Monty Python sketch:
Praline: Hello, I would like to buy a fish licence, please. Grapefruit juice valium, Post office clerk: A what.
Praline: A licence for my pet fish, Eric.
Clerk: How do you know my name is Eric.
Praline: No, no, no, Buying Valium. My fish's name is Eric. Eric fish. 'E's an halibut.
Clerk: He's a what.
Praline: Buying Valium, He is an halibut.
Clerk: You've got a pet halibut.
Praline: Yes, I chose him out of thousands. I didn't like the others, which is stronger xanax or valium, they were all too flat.
Clerk: You're a loony.
Praline: I am not a loony, Buying Valium. Why should I be tarred with the epithet 'loony' merely because I have a pet halibut. I've heard tell that Sir Gerald Nabarro has a pet prawn called Simon - and you wouldn't call Sir Gerald a loony, would you. Furthermore Dawn Palethorpe, the lady show jumper, had a clam called Sir Stafford, after the late chancellor. Alan Bullock has two pikes, Valium without prescription, both called Norman, and the late, great Marcel Proust had an 'addock. If you're calling the author of A la recherche de temps perduBuying Valium, a loony, I shall have to ask you to step outside?.
Clerk: All right, all right, all right. You want a licence.
Praline: Yes.
Clerk: For a fish.
Praline: Yes, Buying Valium.
Clerk: You are a loony.
Praline: Look, it's a bleeding pet, ordering valium without prescription, isn't it. I've got a licence for me pet dog Eric, and I've got a licence for me pet cat Eric.
Clerk: You don't need a licence for a cat.
Praline:Buying Valium, You bleedin' well do and I've got one. You're not catching me out there.
Clerk: There is no such thing as a bloody cat licence.
Praline: Yes, there is.
Clerk: No, there isn't.
Praline: Is, Buying Valium. Valium pill image, Clerk: Isn't.
Praline: Is.
Clerk: Isn't.
Praline: Is.
Clerk:Buying Valium, Isn't.
Praline: Is.
Clerk: Isn't.
Praline: Is.
Clerk: Isn't.
Praline: Is, Buying Valium.
Clerk: Isn't.
Praline: What's that then.
Clerk: That is a dog licence with the word 'dog' crossed out and the word 'cat' written in, in crayon, picture of the pill valium.
Praline: Well, the man didn't have the proper form.
Clerk:Buying Valium, What man.
Praline: The man from the cat detector van.
Clerk: The loony detector van, you mean.
Praline: Look, it's people like you what causes unrest.
Clerk: Alright, what cat detector van.
Praline: The cat detector van from the Ministry of Housinge, Buying Valium.
Clerk: Housinge. Is flexeril like valium, Praline: Yes, it was spelt like that on the van. I'm very observant. I've never seen so many aerials. Buying Valium, The man told me their equipment could pinpoint a purr at four hundred yards, and Eric being such a happy cat was a piece of cake.
Clerk: How much did this cost.
Praline: Sixty quid and eight guineas for the fruit-bat.
Clerk: What fruit-bat.
Praline: Eric the fruit-bat.
Clerk: Are all your pets called Eric, Buying Valium.
Praline: There's nothing so odd about that. Kemel Attaturk had an entire menagerie all called Abdul.
Clerk: No he didn't.
Praline: Did, did, did, did, did, did and did. Buying Valium, There you are. 'Kemal Ataturk, the Man' by E. W. Swanton with a foreword by Paul Anka. Page 91, please.
Clerk: I owe you an apology sir, Buying Valium.
Praline: Spoken like a gentleman. Now, are you going to give me this bicycle licence.
Clerk: I promise you that there is no such thing. You don't need one.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, December 1st, 2009 at 5:27 pm and is filed under Licensed to cycle.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
The roads are designed so as to provide the least possible inconvenience to car drivers. Car drivers have come to believe that they have a right to drive unimpeded wherever they like. Cyclists (and other slow moving traffic) impede the driver and are thus a source of irritation to them. Some drivers are patient and considerate and overtake when safe to do so – I would bet my hat that they cycle too. Others will overtake regardless of the risk.
I was once struck by a car as I exited a roundabout – the female driver screamed that I was in her way as she had to get to work, I should have moved for her. Fortunately I was not hurt and I expect she had to bear the cost of repairing the deep scrape in her car, but it could have been so much worse. I had a bus to my left and it that that she tried to crush me up against. Good bus driver by the way – offered to be a witness for me. The police had no interest though.
I would favour laws that placed a strict tier system on road users – pedestrians, horses, cycles then motor vehicles. Cars give way to me, I give way to pedestrians. It would need simple rules to ensure that pedestrians didn't just walk all over the roads, but I believe something similar works very well in Germany.
One last point – that image above – 'What do motorists REALLY mean' – at a quick glance it reads that cyclists should pay tax and be licensed. It takes some reading to get the true message that motorists have a hidden agenda. I hope that image doesn't get spread around too far as it sends the wrong message. My opinion only though.
The roads are designed so as to provide the least possible inconvenience to car drivers. Car drivers have come to believe that they have a right to drive unimpeded wherever they like. Cyclists (and other slow moving traffic) impede the driver and are thus a source of irritation to them. Some drivers are patient and considerate and overtake when safe to do so – I would bet my hat that they cycle too. Others will overtake regardless of the risk.
I was once struck by a car as I exited a roundabout – the female driver screamed that I was in her way as she had to get to work, I should have moved for her. Fortunately I was not hurt and I expect she had to bear the cost of repairing the deep scrape in her car, but it could have been so much worse. I had a bus to my left and it that that she tried to crush me up against. Good bus driver by the way – offered to be a witness for me. The police had no interest though.
I would favour laws that placed a strict tier system on road users – pedestrians, horses, cycles then motor vehicles. Cars give way to me, I give way to pedestrians. It would need simple rules to ensure that pedestrians didn't just walk all over the roads, but I believe something similar works very well in Germany.
One last point – that image above – 'What do motorists REALLY mean' – at a quick glance it reads that cyclists should pay tax and be licensed. It takes some reading to get the true message that motorists have a hidden agenda. I hope that image doesn't get spread around too far as it sends the wrong message. My opinion only though.
Excellent. The only trouble is that the morons who this is aimed at won't see it and even were they to do so, they can't be persuaded by mere facts and logic.
It's very similar to the debate about climate change, one side is persuaded by facts, the other [if they ever were persuaded] have shown themselves to immune to mere facts.
Interesting matter: I had to replace my bicycle in late July. At the annual August “National Night Out”, I asked the local police whether we had a registration requirement in town (some localities do; it's primarily seen as a theft deterrent). I was told we did, and that I needed to bring my bicycle to the police station to register it. Lucky I got the nametag of the officer who gave me the information; it allowed me to not look like a fool at the station. It took the officer well over a half-hour to find the stickers and xeroxed applications. The information taken about the bicycle was insignificant and would be useless in attempted recovery (the manufacturer's own registration program is much more robust). The stickers were dated “1997″. The current year was “2009″.
At least our town still has stickers. Some years ago, certain counties initiated a habit of engraving the registration onto the bicycle — a practice which would irreparably and permanently DAMAGE today's carbon frames and components.
[...] Licensed to cycle The pros and cons of bicycle registration and licensing of cyclists. “You don’t pay road tax” is just one of many arguments used against cyclists by some motorists. Another is “you all ride through red lights” and “you all ride on pavements.” Now, a simple tit-for-tat response would be to reply that motorists routinely drive through stop-lights on red; and the motorists’ habit of parking on footways is now so commonplace it’s seen as standard. However, two wrongs don’t make a right so, instead of digital fisticuffs, now that ‘reining in scofflaw cyclists’ is such a hot topic, how about examining some of the motorists’ arguments about compulsory registration and licensing for bicycles? [...]
If a licensing scheme included both third party liability insurance and bicycle identification scheme (such as the one offered by http://www.immobilise.com/) then I really wouldn't have a problem with supporting it.
Because by offering both of the above, the vast majority of cyclists would take part in it though both the cost to administer and the cost to the individual must be kept within a reasonable/sensible figure or it will fail to even get off the ground.
When bicycles can be purchased for less than £100 in the UK, anything more than 10% of the cost would not be taken up by many part time and recreational cyclists – so either a fixed amount (e.g. £10 per year) per bike would be realistic or as a percentage of the value of each bike up to 10% might work.
Care must be taken to in reality though to prevent those owning expensive bikes well in excess of £5k or those owning multiple bikes from subsidising everyone else – so a sliding scale may need to be used such as 10% for the first bike and 5% for each subsequent bike – even more administrative issues there.
Even to do this though, is fraught with the difficulties of take up by cyclists or mis-identifying the cost of the bikes (if percentage of purchase cost is used) unless there are obvious benefits not only to individual cyclists (i.e. third party liability insurance & registration system) but to cyclists in general – more investment of cycle paths, cycle safety zones at junctions etc.
Therefore in conclusion a lot more thought of what such a registration scheme would offer and eventually provide to cyclists and other road users is required!
IIRC, the engraving was done in certain towns on Long Island (New York) and in certain precincts of New York City. I currently live in central New Jersey.
The information my town collected about my bicycle was about the level of information that could be collected about a child's very-inexpensive first two-wheeler, purchased from the local toy store or department store.
[...] stated on the iPayRoadTax.com registration/licensing page, calls for cyclists to be registered, pay ‘road’ tax and apply for licences to cycle don’t [...]
Do you cycle to do your grocery shopping? How about a trip to the beach? Out to dinner on a date? Are cars allowed to use the asphalt bike paths they pay for in parks? You don't believe taking a road safety test is necessary for cyclists? There are many aspects of cycling that motorists pay for. Yes, cycling helps the environment. Now it can help the economy.
There are *no* aspects of cycling that motorists pay for. Directly, that is. All cycle paths – like all roads – are paid out of the consolidated fund ie the Treasury's big pot of tax revenue.
Not forgetting, of course, that there are aspects of motoring that are paid for by non-motorists. When you account for the cost of road repair, treating illness caused by pollution, injury caused by motorists and the lost revenue caused by both those and congestion – the tax directly generated by motoring (fuel and vehicle duty, etc) falls short of picking up the tab by a few billion quid. Not that they *do* pick up the tab, of course, it is still all from general taxation (just just outright loss) but motoring costs billions more than it directly pays in. But then, you knew that already.
This issue of jumping the red lights is always coming up, to be honest I don't really mind waiting at red lights, the reason I jump them is often a safety issue. I'd rather jump the lights and get away from the traffic than wait and have a whole load of cars (and other heavy metal) coming up on my right hand side! On the issue of licensing charges per bike, it would be a nightmare for me! I am part of a family of six and over the years have ended up currently managing collection of 9 bikes, all of them used at some point! (and I bet I'm not alone!)
I keep coming on this site and seeing differant views about bicycles etc now as both a car user and a bike user (more bike than car i must add) I feel licencing for bike should happen at least a manditory test to say “I am Safe” (ish)
I pull a trailer alot on my bike and was almost hit by another bike on the wrong side of the road come towards me I had to stop as he was not going to makes me wonder did he know anything from the highway code?
Tax on bikes again yes just for the point of shoving it up the motorists @$$ and lighting it
brings another point every vehicle on the road has insurance well motor vehicle i think it should be made that bikes have it I can just a easy get into an accident as much as mister car driver
Sorry if you dissagree with my views but I dont care they are my views
I keep coming on this site and seeing differant views about bicycles etc now as both a car user and a bike user (more bike than car i must add) I feel licencing for bike should happen at least a manditory test to say “I am Safe” (ish) nnI pull a trailer alot on my bike and was almost hit by another bike on the wrong side of the road come towards me I had to stop as he was not going to makes me wonder did he know anything from the highway code?nnTax on bikes again yes just for the point of shoving it up the motorists @$$ and lighting itnnbrings another point every vehicle on the road has insurance well motor vehicle i think it should be made that bikes have it I can just a easy get into an accident as much as mister car driver nnSorry if you dissagree with my views but I dont care they are my views
Licencing of cars has several aspects:n1. Raising tax on a polluter pays principaln2. Proving you have 3rd party insurancen3. Proving you have a MoT and the car is therefore basically safen4. Proving ownershipnnMany schools where I live only allow children to cycle to school once they have passed Bikeability level 2. As part of the training the bikes are checked for safety. When I have done Dr Bike sessions, I have been quite surprised how many childrens and adults bikes have faulty brakes, broken spokes etc.nnI don’t see a problem with requiring cyclists to have 3rd party insurance although even without insurance you would still be liable if you caused an accident.nnNot sure how you could do a bike MoT given the waiting lists at bike shops but it seems sensible in princpal to me .nnAs for ownership, there are a number of private schemes for bike registration and some manufacturers run their own e.g. Brompton.nnAll Oxbridge colleges have a bike registration scheme and have for many years to deter theft.nnI don’t really see a problem in principal with bike registration/licensing although there is the issue of cost effectiveness. It seems to me that the fact that there are so many partial and ad hoc schemes in place indicates a need and it may even be more cost effective.nnThe argument that increased costs would deter people from cycling is debatable and rather close to the argument used by people who drive without insurance because they can’t afford it. The cost benefits of cycling are such that even with compulsory insurance it would still be a very good deal. The right to cycle surely also has a balancing requirement to be responsible.nnI do use a bike regularly, in fact more than our car, and the whole family has 3rd party insurance via CTC membership. If I had to pay to register the bike I would still use it despite the very tight family budget as it means we use the car less and only need one car.nn
Agreed.rnrnBut *the* major reasons car drivers are insured is because of the damage they can potentially cause. This has been recognised since the very earliest days of motoring.rnrn’Normal’ cycling isn’t that different from being a pedestrian. Should pedestrians be insured, too? Again, it’s all down to the level of damage that can be caused. Cyclists and pedestrians are relatively benign in comparison to motorists.rnrnHowever, yes, of course, regular, hardcore cyclists ought to be third-party insured.
I think if you cycle several times a week using the roads then you should be insured. You could cause quite a lot of damage. This was forcefully impressed n me when I was helping with a cycle promotion at our local station and a lady insisted on showing me the scars where a pavement cyclist had collided with her.nnWhat strikes me is the split-personality of the bicycle: are they a sort of wheeled pedestrian or a human powered vehicle (HPV). Or do they change depending whether they are on a cyclepath or road respectively?nnIf a bicycle is HPV then it seems reasonable to me that things such as insurance, safety checks and so on should apply. If we want to be treated as vehicles doesn’t this apply to a wide range of things?nnI use my bike most days and I have third party via the CTC. This was one of the reasons for joining as well as the campaigning, magazine, cyclist defence fund etc. I don’t think I would have taken out 3rd party as a specific thing. When I was a weekend cyclist I didn’t have any insurance.nnThere is such a lot of ignorance and prejudice towards cycling from car drivers which this campaign highlights, but I’m not sure if the status quo regarding cycling is defensible in all its aspects.
The roads are designed so as to provide the least possible inconvenience to car drivers. Car drivers have come to believe that they have a right to drive unimpeded wherever they like. Cyclists (and other slow moving traffic) impede the driver and are thus a source of irritation to them. Some drivers are patient and considerate and overtake when safe to do so – I would bet my hat that they cycle too. Others will overtake regardless of the risk.
I was once struck by a car as I exited a roundabout – the female driver screamed that I was in her way as she had to get to work, I should have moved for her. Fortunately I was not hurt and I expect she had to bear the cost of repairing the deep scrape in her car, but it could have been so much worse. I had a bus to my left and it that that she tried to crush me up against. Good bus driver by the way – offered to be a witness for me. The police had no interest though.
I would favour laws that placed a strict tier system on road users – pedestrians, horses, cycles then motor vehicles. Cars give way to me, I give way to pedestrians. It would need simple rules to ensure that pedestrians didn't just walk all over the roads, but I believe something similar works very well in Germany.
One last point – that image above – 'What do motorists REALLY mean' – at a quick glance it reads that cyclists should pay tax and be licensed. It takes some reading to get the true message that motorists have a hidden agenda. I hope that image doesn't get spread around too far as it sends the wrong message. My opinion only though.
The roads are designed so as to provide the least possible inconvenience to car drivers. Car drivers have come to believe that they have a right to drive unimpeded wherever they like. Cyclists (and other slow moving traffic) impede the driver and are thus a source of irritation to them. Some drivers are patient and considerate and overtake when safe to do so – I would bet my hat that they cycle too. Others will overtake regardless of the risk.
I was once struck by a car as I exited a roundabout – the female driver screamed that I was in her way as she had to get to work, I should have moved for her. Fortunately I was not hurt and I expect she had to bear the cost of repairing the deep scrape in her car, but it could have been so much worse. I had a bus to my left and it that that she tried to crush me up against. Good bus driver by the way – offered to be a witness for me. The police had no interest though.
I would favour laws that placed a strict tier system on road users – pedestrians, horses, cycles then motor vehicles. Cars give way to me, I give way to pedestrians. It would need simple rules to ensure that pedestrians didn't just walk all over the roads, but I believe something similar works very well in Germany.
One last point – that image above – 'What do motorists REALLY mean' – at a quick glance it reads that cyclists should pay tax and be licensed. It takes some reading to get the true message that motorists have a hidden agenda. I hope that image doesn't get spread around too far as it sends the wrong message. My opinion only though.
Thanks for your input, Steve.
I'll go tweak that pic.
Excellent well-balanced article, most of which (if not all) would apply here in Ireland too.
Excellent.
The only trouble is that the morons who this is aimed at won't see it and even were they to do so, they can't be persuaded by mere facts and logic.
It's very similar to the debate about climate change, one side is persuaded by facts, the other [if they ever were persuaded] have shown themselves to immune to mere facts.
I agree. Not all will be persuaded but it may just make a few folks
think.
Interesting matter: I had to replace my bicycle in late July. At the annual August “National Night Out”, I asked the local police whether we had a registration requirement in town (some localities do; it's primarily seen as a theft deterrent). I was told we did, and that I needed to bring my bicycle to the police station to register it. Lucky I got the nametag of the officer who gave me the information; it allowed me to not look like a fool at the station. It took the officer well over a half-hour to find the stickers and xeroxed applications. The information taken about the bicycle was insignificant and would be useless in attempted recovery (the manufacturer's own registration program is much more robust). The stickers were dated “1997″. The current year was “2009″.
At least our town still has stickers. Some years ago, certain counties initiated a habit of engraving the registration onto the bicycle — a practice which would irreparably and permanently DAMAGE today's carbon frames and components.
What town or region is this?
[...] Licensed to cycle The pros and cons of bicycle registration and licensing of cyclists. “You don’t pay road tax” is just one of many arguments used against cyclists by some motorists. Another is “you all ride through red lights” and “you all ride on pavements.” Now, a simple tit-for-tat response would be to reply that motorists routinely drive through stop-lights on red; and the motorists’ habit of parking on footways is now so commonplace it’s seen as standard. However, two wrongs don’t make a right so, instead of digital fisticuffs, now that ‘reining in scofflaw cyclists’ is such a hot topic, how about examining some of the motorists’ arguments about compulsory registration and licensing for bicycles? [...]
If a licensing scheme included both third party liability insurance and bicycle identification scheme (such as the one offered by http://www.immobilise.com/) then I really wouldn't have a problem with supporting it.
Because by offering both of the above, the vast majority of cyclists would take part in it though both the cost to administer and the cost to the individual must be kept within a reasonable/sensible figure or it will fail to even get off the ground.
When bicycles can be purchased for less than £100 in the UK, anything more than 10% of the cost would not be taken up by many part time and recreational cyclists – so either a fixed amount (e.g. £10 per year) per bike would be realistic or as a percentage of the value of each bike up to 10% might work.
Care must be taken to in reality though to prevent those owning expensive bikes well in excess of £5k or those owning multiple bikes from subsidising everyone else – so a sliding scale may need to be used such as 10% for the first bike and 5% for each subsequent bike – even more administrative issues there.
Even to do this though, is fraught with the difficulties of take up by cyclists or mis-identifying the cost of the bikes (if percentage of purchase cost is used) unless there are obvious benefits not only to individual cyclists (i.e. third party liability insurance & registration system) but to cyclists in general – more investment of cycle paths, cycle safety zones at junctions etc.
Therefore in conclusion a lot more thought of what such a registration scheme would offer and eventually provide to cyclists and other road users is required!
Number of bikes owned is critical! Keenies have lots.
IIRC, the engraving was done in certain towns on Long Island (New York) and in certain precincts of New York City. I currently live in central New Jersey.
The information my town collected about my bicycle was about the level of information that could be collected about a child's very-inexpensive first two-wheeler, purchased from the local toy store or department store.
Good one Carlton, keep up the good work. Canal Permit in the mail!
[...] stated on the iPayRoadTax.com registration/licensing page, calls for cyclists to be registered, pay ‘road’ tax and apply for licences to cycle don’t [...]
[...] is likely to drop its scheme because of the cost. Most American registration schemes are defunct and there’s no [...]
Do you cycle to do your grocery shopping? How about a trip to the beach? Out to dinner on a date? Are cars allowed to use the asphalt bike paths they pay for in parks? You don't believe taking a road safety test is necessary for cyclists? There are many aspects of cycling that motorists pay for. Yes, cycling helps the environment. Now it can help the economy.
There are *no* aspects of cycling that motorists pay for. Directly,
that is. All cycle paths – like all roads – are paid out of the
consolidated fund ie the Treasury's big pot of tax revenue.
Not forgetting, of course, that there are aspects of motoring that are paid for by non-motorists.
When you account for the cost of road repair, treating illness caused by pollution, injury caused by motorists and the lost revenue caused by both those and congestion – the tax directly generated by motoring (fuel and vehicle duty, etc) falls short of picking up the tab by a few billion quid.
Not that they *do* pick up the tab, of course, it is still all from general taxation (just just outright loss) but motoring costs billions more than it directly pays in.
But then, you knew that already.
Yes, but wouldn't it be nice if more people were aware of this too…
This issue of jumping the red lights is always coming up, to be honest I don't really mind waiting at red lights, the reason I jump them is often a safety issue. I'd rather jump the lights and get away from the traffic than wait and have a whole load of cars (and other heavy metal) coming up on my right hand side!
On the issue of licensing charges per bike, it would be a nightmare for me! I am part of a family of six and over the years have ended up currently managing collection of 9 bikes, all of them used at some point! (and I bet I'm not alone!)
I keep coming on this site and seeing differant views about bicycles etc now as both a car user and a bike user (more bike than car i must add) I feel licencing for bike should happen at least a manditory test to say “I am Safe” (ish)
I pull a trailer alot on my bike and was almost hit by another bike on the wrong side of the road come towards me I had to stop as he was not going to makes me wonder did he know anything from the highway code?
Tax on bikes again yes just for the point of shoving it up the motorists @$$ and lighting it
brings another point every vehicle on the road has insurance well motor vehicle i think it should be made that bikes have it I can just a easy get into an accident as much as mister car driver
Sorry if you dissagree with my views but I dont care they are my views
I keep coming on this site and seeing differant views about bicycles etc now as both a car user and a bike user (more bike than car i must add) I feel licencing for bike should happen at least a manditory test to say “I am Safe” (ish) nnI pull a trailer alot on my bike and was almost hit by another bike on the wrong side of the road come towards me I had to stop as he was not going to makes me wonder did he know anything from the highway code?nnTax on bikes again yes just for the point of shoving it up the motorists @$$ and lighting itnnbrings another point every vehicle on the road has insurance well motor vehicle i think it should be made that bikes have it I can just a easy get into an accident as much as mister car driver nnSorry if you dissagree with my views but I dont care they are my views
Licencing of cars has several aspects:n1. Raising tax on a polluter pays principaln2. Proving you have 3rd party insurancen3. Proving you have a MoT and the car is therefore basically safen4. Proving ownershipnnMany schools where I live only allow children to cycle to school once they have passed Bikeability level 2. As part of the training the bikes are checked for safety. When I have done Dr Bike sessions, I have been quite surprised how many childrens and adults bikes have faulty brakes, broken spokes etc.nnI don’t see a problem with requiring cyclists to have 3rd party insurance although even without insurance you would still be liable if you caused an accident.nnNot sure how you could do a bike MoT given the waiting lists at bike shops but it seems sensible in princpal to me .nnAs for ownership, there are a number of private schemes for bike registration and some manufacturers run their own e.g. Brompton.nnAll Oxbridge colleges have a bike registration scheme and have for many years to deter theft.nnI don’t really see a problem in principal with bike registration/licensing although there is the issue of cost effectiveness. It seems to me that the fact that there are so many partial and ad hoc schemes in place indicates a need and it may even be more cost effective.nnThe argument that increased costs would deter people from cycling is debatable and rather close to the argument used by people who drive without insurance because they can’t afford it. The cost benefits of cycling are such that even with compulsory insurance it would still be a very good deal. The right to cycle surely also has a balancing requirement to be responsible.nnI do use a bike regularly, in fact more than our car, and the whole family has 3rd party insurance via CTC membership. If I had to pay to register the bike I would still use it despite the very tight family budget as it means we use the car less and only need one car.nn
Agreed.rnrnBut *the* major reasons car drivers are insured is because of the damage they can potentially cause. This has been recognised since the very earliest days of motoring.rnrn’Normal’ cycling isn’t that different from being a pedestrian. Should pedestrians be insured, too? Again, it’s all down to the level of damage that can be caused. Cyclists and pedestrians are relatively benign in comparison to motorists.rnrnHowever, yes, of course, regular, hardcore cyclists ought to be third-party insured.
I think if you cycle several times a week using the roads then you should be insured. You could cause quite a lot of damage. This was forcefully impressed n me when I was helping with a cycle promotion at our local station and a lady insisted on showing me the scars where a pavement cyclist had collided with her.nnWhat strikes me is the split-personality of the bicycle: are they a sort of wheeled pedestrian or a human powered vehicle (HPV). Or do they change depending whether they are on a cyclepath or road respectively?nnIf a bicycle is HPV then it seems reasonable to me that things such as insurance, safety checks and so on should apply. If we want to be treated as vehicles doesn’t this apply to a wide range of things?nnI use my bike most days and I have third party via the CTC. This was one of the reasons for joining as well as the campaigning, magazine, cyclist defence fund etc. I don’t think I would have taken out 3rd party as a specific thing. When I was a weekend cyclist I didn’t have any insurance.nnThere is such a lot of ignorance and prejudice towards cycling from car drivers which this campaign highlights, but I’m not sure if the status quo regarding cycling is defensible in all its aspects.