Bicycle licences & numberplates: the pros and cons
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 and, while the social identity theory will always mean the “out” group is demonised by the “in” group there’s little point in dwelling on this so how about examining some of the arguments about compulsory registration and licensing for bicycles?
Calls for bicycle licensing are frequently voiced, even from friendly quarters. For instance, a graphic in the extensive ‘cycle safe’ campaign in The Times, in February 2012, seemed to suggest that bicycle licensing would be a requirement if cyclists ever wanted to be shown “consideration” on the roads. Such a concept may be attractive to legislators seeking easy and cheap “solutions” but is bicycle licensing worth the expense, and would it work? And do calls for bicycle licensing reflect a genuine desire to improve road safety or is it a means for the motorised majority to reduce cycling levels with regulations?
THEY DO IT IN OTHER COUNTRIES
It’s true. Some countries have had bicycle registration and licence schemes. Japan still does (all bicycles sold in Japan are registered with the local government as an anti-theft measure). In Switzerland, until recently it was compulsory to have a CHF-5-10 ‘Velo Vignette’ (bike sticker) ‘license’ but as well as being a registration scheme it was a way of getting cyclists to purchase third-party liability insurance. However, in March 2010, the Swiss parliament started to debate whether to abolish the licenses, and then did. Political bean counters said the costs of the scheme far outstripped the revenue.
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. 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 was looking into registration of cyclists but as the Deputy of the States – Jersey’s parliament – made a major gaffe in his submission, the idea never got off the ground.
In July 2011, councillor Monette of Ottawa asked the City Operations team to evaluate whether it would be worth creating a bicycle licensing scheme. In January 2012, the answer came back no and non.
The City Operations team said:
Given limited benefits and significant challenges, and primarily based on the fact that bicycle licensing would act as a significant barrier to cycling, it is recommended that bicycle licensing not be implemented in the City of Ottawa
But, for sake of argument, if a bike registration scheme was introduced in a city, how much should cyclists pay? 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. 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. 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. 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 have ‘strict liability’, the insurance concept that helps to protect cyclists and pedestrians, but the UK has chosen not to opt in to this (and the mainstream press can be whipped up into a frenzy of hate when the idea is broached).
You know who really liked bicycle registration schemes? The Nazis during World War Two. The bicycle on the left is a French semi-recumbent and features a WWII bicycle number plate, as required by the occupying army. (The bicycle belongs to the Embacher collection and is a screengrab from the wonderful Cyclepedia iPad app).
The Nazis liked bicycle registration? Not according to the very funny Downfall spoof below:
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, 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. 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, we can get them off the cameras.”
Bicycles with number plates big enough to be read by traffic cameras? 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. 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. 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. 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, 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? 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. Cyclists who ride recklessly risk, for the most part, only their own life and limb. Hit a car; risk death. Hit a pedestrian; risk serious injury. Cyclists pay attention; self-preservation polices itself.
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? Simple: cyclists do not operate heavy, powerful, 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. 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, 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. 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, 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 pay 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. Motorways: cyclists aren’t allowed on them, but adult cyclist tax-payers still pay for them.
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. 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.
“A Band A tax discs for bikes would have the same effect. Rather than save the government money, the scheme should be argued for. 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.
For instance, in Maine, USA, legislators want to impose a 2 percent surcharge on new bike sales. State lawmakers say proceeds from this new tax, mooted in March 2011, would go toward a Bikeway Construction Fund.
According to Nancy Grant, executive director of the Bicycle Coalition of Maine, about 10,000 bikes are sold in the state each year. “If the average price of a bike is $400, the total funds collected would be $80,000. That would hardly cover the engineering and design costs of a typical bike/pedestrian project, much less the construction. Subtract the cost of administering this tax, and there’s even less,” she said.
Jerry Porter, manager of the bike shop inside of Ski Rack Sports in Bangor, Maine, asked why the bill targets just cyclists because bikeways are also used by runners, joggers with baby strollers and dog walkers, as well as others. “I don’t know why they’re targeting us,” he said. “We’re already paying taxes as it is.”
And, back in the UK, cyclists already pay some cash. The UK bicycle industry has a levy fund. It’s called Bike Hub: 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, the Bike Hub smartphone navigation apps, 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.
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. 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. 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. 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; and would fail to prevent traffic law transgressions. (The gert big numbers on the side of Boris Bikes in London have not been used to report naughty Cycle Hire scheme riders).
In the UK, the Government has shown it is not minded to make cyclists register before hopping on their bikes. In 2006, Lord Davies of Oldham said:
The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 provides for the registration of mechanically propelled vehicles so it would not be possible to register bicycles or cyclists under that Act. To enable the Government to administer the registration of cyclists, changes in legislation would have to be considered along with extensive changes to computer systems.
There are more than 20 million bicycles in Great Britain—many of which change owners frequently—and one in three adults owns a bicycle. To register them would entail the establishment of a system parallel to that presently existing for motor vehicles.
The cost of such a system would, in the Department for Transport’s view, outweigh any possible benefits and so we do not propose to take this idea forward.
Making people register to use bicycles 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. 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. They may also want bikes to carry signal indicators. 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. The ‘no pay, no say’ crowd would use any payment as a “but you don’t pay enough” argument.
—————
NOW FOR SOME LIGHT RELIEF…
Suggesting that cyclists to pay ‘road tax – which, in the UK, is an emissions-based tax and for which cyclists would pay the same as Band A motorcars, i.e. £0 – is as ludicrous as asking pedestrians to pay a ‘pavement tax’. Just as it’s not cyclists wrecking the roads, it’s not pedestrians cracking pavement slabs. In both cases it’s motorists.
Pedestrians will be issued with a sandwich board fitted front and back with a number plate, so they can tracked when they cause accidents. There will, of course, be space on the boards for advertising of the governments choosing in order to keep the costs down for the pedestrian.
Pedestrians will have to have liability insurance cover of three million pounds before they can legally take to the streets. Government statistics have shown that pedestrian accidents cause millions of pounds worth of damage to expensive vehicles every year.
If pedestrians want to walk on our streets, which we pay for with all our driving taxes, then they need to pay their share and take their part of the responsibility. Anybody who walks anywhere should undergo training, should have to pay an annual tax towards the facilities they enjoy, should display a license plate so they can be identified, and should each be made to carry insurance in case they are ever involved in any accidents.
—————
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.
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.
Anonymous
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.
Anonymous
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
Anonymous
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
Anonymous
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!rnOn 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!)
Anonymous
Yes, but wouldn’t it be nice if more people were aware of this too…
Anonymous
Not forgetting, of course, that there are aspects of motoring that are paid for by non-motorists.rnWhen 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.rnNot 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.rnBut then, you knew that already.
Anonymous
There are *no* aspects of cycling that motorists pay for. Directly, rnthat is. All cycle paths – like all roads – are paid out of the rnconsolidated fund ie the Treasury’s big pot of tax revenue.
Anonymous
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.
Anonymous
Good one Carlton, keep up the good work. Canal Permit in the mail!
Anonymous
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.rnrnThe 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.
Anonymous
Number of bikes owned is critical! Keenies have lots.
Anonymous
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.nnBecause 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.nnWhen bicycles can be purchased for less than u00a3100 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. u00a310 per year) per bike would be realistic or as a percentage of the value of each bike up to 10% might work.nnCare must be taken to in reality though to prevent those owning expensive bikes well in excess of u00a35k 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.nnEven 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.nnTherefore 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!
Anonymous
What town or region is this?
Anonymous
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″.nnAt 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.
Anonymous
I agree. Not all will be persuaded but it may just make a few folks rnthink.
Anonymous
Excellent. nThe 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. nnIt’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.
Anonymous
Excellent well-balanced article, most of which (if not all) would apply here in Ireland too.
Anonymous
Thanks for your input, Steve.nnI’ll go tweak that pic.
Anonymous
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. nnI 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.nnI 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.nnOne 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.
Anonymous
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. nnI 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.nnI 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.nnOne 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.
Anonymous
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.
Anonymous
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.
Anonymous
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
Anonymous
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
Anonymous
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!rnOn 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!)
Anonymous
Yes, but wouldn’t it be nice if more people were aware of this too…
Anonymous
Not forgetting, of course, that there are aspects of motoring that are paid for by non-motorists.rnWhen 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.rnNot 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.rnBut then, you knew that already.
Anonymous
There are *no* aspects of cycling that motorists pay for. Directly, rnthat is. All cycle paths – like all roads – are paid out of the rnconsolidated fund ie the Treasury’s big pot of tax revenue.
Anonymous
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.
Anonymous
Good one Carlton, keep up the good work. Canal Permit in the mail!
Anonymous
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.rnrnThe 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.
Anonymous
Number of bikes owned is critical! Keenies have lots.
Anonymous
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.nnBecause 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.nnWhen bicycles can be purchased for less than u00a3100 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. u00a310 per year) per bike would be realistic or as a percentage of the value of each bike up to 10% might work.nnCare must be taken to in reality though to prevent those owning expensive bikes well in excess of u00a35k 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.nnEven 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.nnTherefore 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!
Anonymous
What town or region is this?
Anonymous
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″.nnAt 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.
Anonymous
I agree. Not all will be persuaded but it may just make a few folks rnthink.
Anonymous
Excellent. nThe 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. nnIt’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.
Anonymous
Excellent well-balanced article, most of which (if not all) would apply here in Ireland too.
Anonymous
Thanks for your input, Steve.nnI’ll go tweak that pic.
Anonymous
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. nnI 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.nnI 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.nnOne 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.
Anonymous
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. nnI 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.nnI 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.nnOne 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.
Anonymous
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.
Anonymous
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.
Anonymous
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
Anonymous
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
Anonymous
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!rnOn 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!)
Anonymous
Yes, but wouldn’t it be nice if more people were aware of this too…
Anonymous
Not forgetting, of course, that there are aspects of motoring that are paid for by non-motorists.rnWhen 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.rnNot 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.rnBut then, you knew that already.
Anonymous
There are *no* aspects of cycling that motorists pay for. Directly, rnthat is. All cycle paths – like all roads – are paid out of the rnconsolidated fund ie the Treasury’s big pot of tax revenue.
Anonymous
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.
Anonymous
Good one Carlton, keep up the good work. Canal Permit in the mail!
Anonymous
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.rnrnThe 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.
Anonymous
Number of bikes owned is critical! Keenies have lots.
Anonymous
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.nnBecause 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.nnWhen bicycles can be purchased for less than u00a3100 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. u00a310 per year) per bike would be realistic or as a percentage of the value of each bike up to 10% might work.nnCare must be taken to in reality though to prevent those owning expensive bikes well in excess of u00a35k 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.nnEven 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.nnTherefore 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!
Anonymous
What town or region is this?
Anonymous
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″.nnAt 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.
Anonymous
I agree. Not all will be persuaded but it may just make a few folks rnthink.
Anonymous
Excellent. nThe 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. nnIt’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.
Anonymous
Excellent well-balanced article, most of which (if not all) would apply here in Ireland too.
Anonymous
Thanks for your input, Steve.nnI’ll go tweak that pic.
Anonymous
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. nnI 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.nnI 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.nnOne 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.
Anonymous
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. nnI 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.nnI 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.nnOne 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.
Anonymous
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.
Anonymous
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.
Anonymous
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
Anonymous
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
Anonymous
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!rnOn 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!)
Anonymous
Yes, but wouldn’t it be nice if more people were aware of this too…
Anonymous
Not forgetting, of course, that there are aspects of motoring that are paid for by non-motorists.rnWhen 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.rnNot 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.rnBut then, you knew that already.
Anonymous
There are *no* aspects of cycling that motorists pay for. Directly, rnthat is. All cycle paths – like all roads – are paid out of the rnconsolidated fund ie the Treasury’s big pot of tax revenue.
Anonymous
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.
Anonymous
Good one Carlton, keep up the good work. Canal Permit in the mail!
Anonymous
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.rnrnThe 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.
Anonymous
Number of bikes owned is critical! Keenies have lots.
Anonymous
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.nnBecause 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.nnWhen bicycles can be purchased for less than u00a3100 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. u00a310 per year) per bike would be realistic or as a percentage of the value of each bike up to 10% might work.nnCare must be taken to in reality though to prevent those owning expensive bikes well in excess of u00a35k 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.nnEven 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.nnTherefore 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!
Anonymous
What town or region is this?
Anonymous
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″.nnAt 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.
Anonymous
I agree. Not all will be persuaded but it may just make a few folks rnthink.
Anonymous
Excellent. nThe 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. nnIt’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.
Anonymous
Excellent well-balanced article, most of which (if not all) would apply here in Ireland too.
Anonymous
Thanks for your input, Steve.nnI’ll go tweak that pic.
Anonymous
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. nnI 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.nnI 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.nnOne 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.
Anonymous
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. nnI 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.nnI 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.nnOne 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.
Steve Brown
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.
Steve Brown
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.
http://www.quickrelease.tv carltonreid
Thanks for your input, Steve.
I'll go tweak that pic.
http://twitter.com/inquisitioneu Ronan McDonnell
Excellent well-balanced article, most of which (if not all) would apply here in Ireland too.
Scared_Amoeba
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.
http://www.quickrelease.tv carltonreid
I agree. Not all will be persuaded but it may just make a few folks think.
http://twitter.com/tmana Brenda Bell
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.
http://www.quickrelease.tv carltonreid
What town or region is this?
http://ipayroadtax.com/?p=221 I Pay Road Tax
[...] 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? [...]
Furry_Mommy
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!
http://www.quickrelease.tv carltonreid
Number of bikes owned is critical! Keenies have lots.
http://twitter.com/tmana Brenda Bell
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.
neilwheel
Good one Carlton, keep up the good work. Canal Permit in the mail!
http://ipayroadtax.com/?p=332 Oz biz org boss gets media plugs for his bike reg rant – I Pay Road Tax
[...] 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 [...]
http://ipayroadtax.com/?p=336 Jersey discusses registration of cyclists but uses car number plate form – I Pay Road Tax
[...] is likely to drop its scheme because of the cost. Most American registration schemes are defunct and there’s no [...]
jozz1975
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.
http://www.quickrelease.tv carltonreid
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.
William
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.
http://www.quickrelease.tv carltonreid
Yes, but wouldn't it be nice if more people were aware of this too…
snick_b
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!)
Shaddaz
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 @$$ and lighting it
brings another point every vehicle on the road has insurance well motor vehicle i think it should be made that bikes have it I can just a easy get into an accident as much as mister car driver
Sorry if you dissagree with my views but I dont care they are my views
Shaddaz
I keep coming on this site and seeing differant views about bicycles etc now as both a car user and a bike user (more bike than car i must add) I feel licencing for bike should happen at least a manditory test to say “I am Safe” (ish) nnI pull a trailer alot on my bike and was almost hit by another bike on the wrong side of the road come towards me I had to stop as he was not going to makes me wonder did he know anything from the highway code?nnTax on bikes again yes just for the point of shoving it up the motorists @$$ 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
OldGreyBeard
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
http://www.quickrelease.tv carltonreid
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.
OldGreyBeard
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.
http://ipayroadtax.com/?p=469 Cyclists “more dangerous” than drivers so should pay “road tax”? – I Pay Road Tax
[...] “Maybe cyclists should pay some sort of contribution or be licensed in some way.” [...]
OldGreyBeard
The Transport for London hire bikes all have unique easily visible numbers on them and since TfL know who has a bike at any time, it will be interesting to see if it results in reports of offences and identification of the individual e.g. pavement cyclng, red light jumping and so on.nnIt is often claimed that bike registration would reduce such offences as the offender can be identified. Somehow I doubt that it will be regarded as all that important. A bit like using a mobile whilst driving.
http://www.quickrelease.tv carltonreid
Good point. Really good point.
http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/bike-licensing-doesnt-work-just-ask-boris/ Bike licensing doesn’t work, just ask Boris – I Pay Road Tax
[...] so cyclists should steer clear, and in the same sentence or shortly thereafter they bring up the ‘all cyclists should be licensed’ [...]
grand , votre site disposition style est véritablement grand, Je suis recherche pour obtenir un nouveau disposition style pour mon moncler doudoune individuels blog , j’aime vôtre, maintenant je vais aller chercher le exacte même disposition style !…
Idonttrustyou
Motor vehicles are dangerous machines due to their weight and speed. Bicycles are not as dangerous but it would be good to have some education for both cyclists and pedestrians. It’d be great to not allow motor vehicles in cities at all but if they are allowed put them at a higher standard of safety.
Idonttrustyou
People speed, run orange and red lights, switch lanes without signalling, park where they are not suppose to all the time. They have licenses in front and back but it does not deter them too much; not where I unfortunately live.
bonzadog
I understand the zero emissions argument in terms of not paying vehicle excise duty, however I do strongly feel that yclists that use the road should take a test to demonstrate proficiency and awareness on the roads. I also think a registration plate and at least third party insurance, then at least should you decide to undertake and clip my vehicle I can recoup the costs. I regularly see cyclist and motorists breaking the laws that are there for our safety. As a driver if I commit an offence that is caught on camera my registration plate will lead the boys in blue straight to my door, a cyclist will generally not be traceable so no action is taken to modify their behaviour. This lack of accountability by those who choose to give cyclists a bad name is a contributory factor to the animosity witnessed between cyclists and motorists. I witness the same animosity from cyclists shouting at people on pavements to get out of their way.
John
I suggest a cycling licence (with test) that would be compulsory for new motorists but optional for cyclists, so that you have to learn to cycle before starting to learn to drive.
http://www.quickrelease.tv carltonreid
Getting more drivers to see from a cyclists point of view would be desirable, for sure.
MikeyD87
Now can someone explain to me why, as a road user who drives a hybrid car, obeys to the speed limits, stops at the lights, gives way to pedestrians and cyclists when town roads are busy, and happily follows bikes in areas of 30mph or less, has to put up with cyclists on long bendy 50-60mph roads where the only point of them is to link town A to Town B? I can’t see any other use for these roads other than linking towns and cities and therefore would believe them to be for people commuting to work or to go shopping. For example where I live in Cornwall there are 2 towns Camelford and Wadebridge linked by about 12 miles of 60mph country roads (the A39) I drive on there for shopping and mainly to and from various aspects of my work as I have to travel a lot for work (remember i drive i hybrid so i’m just as eco-warrior as cyclists). I see everyday around 5-15 cyclists on this road and for the love of me it seems to just be a hobbyist cycle or maybe training for a bicycling event. If they were going to work they would most likely be late every day and be really smelly and i wouldn’t hire someone late and smelly. Now the fact of the matter is “should i be allowed to drive and 58-60 mph on this A road?” yes its legal and safe to do so, the problem i am presented with is just around the next bend there could be a cyclist and many times i have narrowly avoided one when i have been doing 45mph on the bends luckily i pay good attention and there was enough braking distance, however if i have to go around them and a car doing 45-60mph may not see me or the bike due to there being more bends and ploughs into either me (and my family sometimes) or a cyclist who is to blame? they cars where doing within the limit, i was on the otherside because there wan’t enough time to stop for the bike and the other car cant see anything, take away the cyclist and no problems, so yes cars may have killed the people butu00a0indirectlyu00a0a cyclist could be involved and i wonder just how many cyclists are killed a year due to the “Soft target of a cyclist or the hard target of a car full of people and children” not being mean but id rather kill mr cyclist and possibly myself than a car with mum dad and 3 children because the cyclist wasn’t detectable on fast roads. Some times the situation is I’m on my way to a job and a bicyclist is going up hill really slowly and doesn’t move over to the the hard shoulder (which in my opinion they should if they are on busy A and B roads that dotn have cycle lanes) and i can’t pass them because of traffic on theu00a0other side, yes imu00a0patientu00a0and wait but sometimes can cause me to be late. Other times i have beenu00a0extremelyu00a0close to killing oneu00a0becauseu00a0its dark and they aren’t properly lit up or wearingu00a0reflective’su00a0etc, Now I’m not saying you should pay for riding bikes or you shouldn’t use the roads, but why these roads that don’t serve any obviousu00a0purpose to cyclists, With that being saidu00a0coincidently around this area is “the Camel Trial” A very long multi surface bike trail which has foot and cycle paths (no road users except for crossings of roads) and cuts across most of north Cornwall, why don’t the cyclist stick to local cycling, around their towns and villages and the cycle routes designated? why cycle on these long, fast roads which you u00a0have no real reason to go on other than to have enjoyment in cycling or practise when there are plenty of other outlets and places to do them in. Now if any one argues with my case of this then it is just another case of snobbery, like the snobbery i get from some cyclists, not all, for overtaking cyclist, (when it is safe to do so) just because they have all day doesn’t mean I do especially if its an emergency trip to say a hospital.u00a0Now if iu00a0wasn’tu00a0disabledu00a0I would ride a bike, but not to work because of weather, theu00a0sweatiness, and there could be some issues that would mean I would be late, but i would ride to my local shop and with my children to school and at weekends to the park or along these cycle trials around the area (and other parts of the country) but I can’t. I wouldn’t ride along the roads I haveu00a0describedu00a0that cause bother and irritation and danger to everyone involved on them just for a hobby, if i need to get to work and wasn’t covering a lot of areas in a short amount of time i would bus these roads and walk the rest and I do walk instead of cycling.
http://www.quickrelease.tv carltonreid
MichaelnnIt’s good you’re researching this topic by Googling and then reaching out to a website which talks about how roads are funded and how cyclists have equal rights on the roads.nnI wish more drivers had similar concerns.nnIt also sounds like you’re a considerate driver.nnNow, to answer some of your points.nnFirst, probably very few cyclists cycle for “eco-warrior” reasons. Most of us cycle because it’s fun, fast through towns, and keeps us fit. nnBut there are also many other reasons and there are many different kinds of cyclists, including sport cyclists who choose to ride on the 50-60mph roads you describe, often in groups. Cycling can be a social activity.nnSometimes non-sport cyclists have to use these fast A & B roads because there’s no other choice. Whether it’s sport cyclists or commuter cyclists or people-on-bikes-who-don’t-call-themselves-cyclists, these folks have every right to use the roads in question. Roads were not built for motorists. Motorists are Johnny-come-latelies on the roads of Britain.nnYou say it’s legal and safe to drive at 60mph on these roads. Legal, yes. Safe? Not always. If you don’t know what’s around the corner on one of these roads, you shouldn’t be doing 60, and perhaps even 45mph is too fast? It might not be a cyclist around the corner; it might be a stalled HGV.nnThe scenario you describe about removing the cyclist and there would have been no problem would be equally true about a slower car, a tractor or any other number of similar “obstacles”. Who would be at fault in a crash? Why, the drivers smacking into the obstacles of course. Speed limits are not minimums they are maximums. Drivers should drive to the conditions not to an number on a red roundel. Sadly, too many do not, and too many assume they have the right to barrel along without having to slow down for anything in their way.nnThe analogy of a motorist choosing to hit a cyclist rather than a family in a car is explored here on the site http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/us-motorist-says-he-pays-for-a-driving-surface-would-swerve-to-hit-a-soft-thing-rather-than-hit-a-hard-thing/nnCould a split second decision really be made like this? Weighing up whether to kill a cyclist or hit a hard thing? I find it shocking that some motorists have thought about it. Take away the bicycle and you have a human being. nn”Cyclist not detectable”: we’re not invisible. If cyclists exploded upon impact, motorists would have no trouble spotting them. If a motorist can’t slow down before hitting or avoiding one on a “fast road” then that motorist has either not being paying attention or is driving too fast for the conditions. There’s no such thing as a blind bend: take the corner slowly and a motorist could stop no matter what was around the bend.nn”roads that don’t serve any purpose to cyclists”: How can you say this? If cyclists are using the road, that’s purpose. Again, please remember that only a tiny fraction of the roads in the UK were built for the express use of motorists. The argument that cyclists should only ever use cycle paths, could be extended to motorists; they should only ever be allowed to use motorways.nnClearly this is daft. And so is the notion that cyclists should stick to Camel Trail style cycle paths. nnSome cyclists cycle for a “hobby” but the majority use bikes for getting from A to B.nnThere will be an increasing number of cyclists in the years ahead so you’d better get used to seeing more and more of them on the roads. nnIf you have an “emergency trip to the hospital”, I suggest you call an ambulance and blue light your way past the cyclists. If it’s just an ordinary trip to the hospital, drive to the road conditions, pay attention, be ready to slow to a stop around corners (remember, it could be a rock-solid HGV you might hit, not a squishy cyclist) and leave earlier so you don’t get so frustrated at fellow road users.
http://thebikeshow.net Jack Thurston
MikeyD87: You own a car, not the road.
http://twitter.com/DoctorRad Matt Wenham
“remember i drive i hybrid so i’m just as eco-warrior as cyclists”nnHahahahahaha… no, I mean proper laugh out loud bobbins of the highest order.
Mike
Discussing the finer points of bike registration and insurance is ridiculous.u00a0nnPeople driving motor cars cause 99% of road-user-related damage to property and human life.nnWe should be doing everything we can to encourage walking and cycling, not coming up with schemes to make it even less attractivennOur town planners and highway engineers have already done a good enough job there
James coldicott
Mr Father was killed on a Duel Carrige way, road was quiet and no visibilty issues. He was an experienced cyclist killed by an in-experienced driver. The Road was straight and could be seen for about 20 seconds before impact. The driver got sentenced but the jail term was suspended. to make a difference people need to go to prison for these offences as this would make people think how they drive.u00a0Iu00a0think everyone is in a rush these days and there is no need to race everywhereu00a0just enjoy where you are going. which is why some many of us ride our bikes. The hardest part will be when i tell my 3 year old daughter what happened to Grandad and try to explain why i still ride.
http://twitter.com/bazzargh bazzargh
Mikey, my commute is 20 miles each way, which takes me 1 hour 15 or less by bike. Worst was once I had a puncture, and it took me 1 hour 35. There’s no direct train, and the station is 3 miles away; going that route takes me 1 hour 50, but pretty much every day there’s a delay, and its worst case was 2 hours 40. The bike makes me early, not late.nSecondly, DoT advice is that if you intend to ride at the kind of speeds I’m doing you should steer clear of shared use cycle paths and take the road. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2004/ltnwc/annexdcodeofconductnoticefor1688
http://www.quickrelease.tv carltonreid
That’s so sad, on many levels.nnI think Michael is at least thinking about these issues and I applaud him for researching the subject. I hope the answers to his queries – and statements – further educate him and he becomes a better, more considerate driver.nnIf motorists happen upon iPayRoadTax.com and even just a few come away a little bit more aware of what and who pays for roads, and why cyclists have equal rights to use those roads, all the effort to create and sustain the site will be worth it. nnOne Driver At A Time…
Mike
Interesting to read the assumptions about killing Mr Cyclist. In my area (South London), many of these legitimate road users are Mrs Cyclist, Miss Cyclist and Master Cyclist.nnI’d love to know if this road user would choose to kill a teenage girl on a bike (my niece is 15 and rides regularly in Cheshire, btw) rather than into a tree or a car?
Anonymous
As it happens, in terms of getting to work, it seems that cyclists are about the most reliable/consistent – although this is hearsay as I’m not able to dig out the reference. I’m guessing that this is because cyclists are best able to deal with (navigate around) disruptions to their route and because most leave sufficient margin in their journey time to be able to swap out an inner tube in the case of a puncture.nnIn terms of “smelly” – well… I’ve always found that to be perfectly manageable (i.e. to not be malodourous at work) with a fairly minimal amount of effort.
http://www.quickrelease.tv carltonreid
I’d rather motorists didn’t think about this sort of thing in advance, because that could influence their sub-conscious mind should the worst happen.nnIt’s as though we’re dogs or cats or something ie I’ve heard some drivers talk about what kind of things they’d swerve to miss on a road, with cats being fair game but dogs not.nn
Anonymous
The best argument is that low emissions cars fall into Band A and pay u00a30. A cyclist has lower emissions than a Band A car so why should we pay?
Anonymous
Most cyclists have taken and passed a car driving test. Just because they are on a bike doesn’t mean they are too poor or too stupid to pass the car test.
http://pjakma.wordpress.com/ Paul Jakma
Hi Mikey,nnFirstly, as a car driver and cyclist (inc for commuting), who always stops at red lights, can I say that there seem to be at least as many (if not far more, given how more numerous they are) car drivers who jump red lights. Many car drivers treat yellow lights as “speed up & try beat the lights”, and so very very commonly car drivers end up going through lights that have turned red.u00a0nnA tonne or more of motor vehicle, going through a red light at >30mph is a far, *far*, **FAR** more serious danger to road users than a sub-100kg cyclist at <20mph going through. The former has order of *100* times more kinetic energy. If the cyclist carefully (i.e. slowly) goes through the red, then the difference is more like *200* times the energy. Every now and then, cars trying to speed through lights get it wrong and end up crashing, often ploughing into footpaths. 2 women were killed recently in Glasgow by a car going off the road at lights (I don't know for sure if trying to beat lights was the reason, but it's the likely reason). Last week I saw u00a0a car at another set of lights that had gone off and smashed into poles just past light – again, I didnt see why, but I'm willing to bet light-running was part of it. I've personally nearly been run over, when on my bicycle, when braking for yellow lights, because of car drivers behind being too close and/or not expecting to brake for yellow. Twice in less than a year I've had cars behind me come to a stop at an angle *beside* me from leaving their braking too late for lights.nnSo, as a car driver and cyclist, I have to say that, while I thoroughly disapprove of cyclists who cycle through red lights (especially if through pedestrian crossings), that by *far* the greatest danger on the roads due to red-light jumping is from motor vehicle traffic.nnNext, how can you say that cyclists have no reason to be on inter-town roads? Firstly, quite a number of cyclists actually commute between towns. Who are you to say they have no reason to travel from town A to B? Secondly, the roads belong to everyone – not just you – not just motorists. They're paid for out of general taxation, and pretty much everyone pays tax. Cyclists have as much right to the road as anyone, be it for business or recreational use.u00a0nnNext, you do NOT have a right to travel at the speed limit. The speed limit is just that, a *limit*. You are, ABOVE ALL ELSE, required to travel at no greater a speed than is safe for *all others*. Additionally, you are required to travel at no greater a speed than the limit. The speed limit IS NOT a goal!u00a0nnIf you go round a bend at a speed that leaves you no time to react to slower moving vehicles, then you're driving recklessly! Never mind cyclists, there could be a stationary car around that bend or a tractor, or a pedestrian or a horse or a herd of cows or a wild animal or … If you try pass on a bend, at a speed that leaves you without time to react, then again, you're driving RECKLESSLY! You should slow down, stay behind the slower moving vehicle, and pass when it is safe to do so.nnThis is all stuff which you must surely be familiar with if you have passed a driving test or a theory test. It may be an idea to re-read the Highway Code. nnRe bright & reflective clothing. Cyclists do not have to wear it, no more than cars are required to have bright/reflective paint jobs. Cyclists must show white lights to the front and red to the rear. If it is dark, or visibility is bad, and you find you can't see cyclists in time, then you're going too fast and should slow down. Obviously cyclists without lights are in the wrong themselves, but still, if it's in the city, you should be able to see them just fine. If you can't, you probably are going too fast, again.nnSweatiness – I don't see how that's your problem. How sweaty a cyclist gets depends on how hard they cycle. Some cyclists deliberately cycle hard to work up a sweat, as part of their daily exercise – they may have showers at work. However, it's perfectly possible to cycle more slowly, in normal clothes, and arrive at work as fresh as when you started. It's a personal choice and one which, as you're not a cyclist, doesn't affect you.nn
Anonymous
Oddly enough I passed a horse last week. Nice old Romani Gent with a horse and trap going up hill. Said hello as I passed and rode off to the next hill. I had seen cars passing this horse with miles of space and nice and slow. Next I’m riding down hill half a mile away, easily doing over 30mph on the bike and yet motorists HAVE to get past me. One even cuts me up last second to beat me past a parked car. They gave a horse way more consideration on that day than myself, even when matching the motor speed limit.nnOdd, odd people.
Anonymous
Get a rebate, hahaha!
Fabian
The “Velo Vigette” sticker here in Switzerland has no registration function but works as a mandatory insurance. However, Swiss government has now suspended the Vignette. From next year on there wont be any obligation to get the sticker.u00a0
http://twitter.com/HGJohn John Sutton
The other point about cyclists jumping red lights is the fact that a Transport for London has shown that 0 pedestrians have been killed by cyclists jumping red lights between 1998 and 2007, whereas in the much shorter period of 2001 to 2005, 7 pedestrians have been killed by car drivers jumping red lights. 95% of all accidents in London causing injury to pedestrians were by motor vehicles.u00a0nhttp://irontwit.creativeblogs.net/2011/11/22/all-cyclists-jump-red-lights-and-menace-pedestrians/
Worzel6
WHAT UTTER NONSENCE !!! why should cyclist pay road tax when some cars dont pay ?? afterall cycling is the “greenest” transport there is goverments should be encouraging cycling by making better and more cycle lanes for our safety rather than ripping us off ! what next BREATHING TAX ???..!!!!!
theoneaxe
last time i read the highway code for cars there was a section including cyclists if this is still so they are already aware that we are allowed to use the road. They just want something to winge at because of the choice they made in their type of transportation. nu00a0nREF: highway code rule 61-65(inc) and 140
Theoneaxe
took me awhile to get the picture too i think it is a little ott myself.
