Cycle riders and licence plates

[Cyclone]

Surely that means that car registration plates are no use at all then, unless you can conclusively say that they aren't being (mis)used by someone else. Is that right?

No, but they do cause people problems when they are cloned.

Already explained this several times to you. The ID number is simply part of your unique policy number. The number is held on existing insurance databases with other existing policy numbers.

Oh, well, it's trivial then, I'm sure capita could implement that for you for 50p and a box of chocolates.

You're not in IT are you.

I haven't argued that cyclists should. Have you been reading my responses at all?

Motorists (should) pay insurance, a small insurance fee per year for cyclists would cover it all (whilst also covering accidents they might get into).

I saw you say £10 to £20 a year for cyclists.

 

You seem to be either not reading my explanations or just pretending that I haven't given them.

No, it's just that I don't think they explain or justify what has been suggested.

 

Why would any government IT project need to be implemented?

Because to make the cyclist registration a legal requirement, the government would need to control and track the registration. You even mentioned the national insurance database. Who do you think built that, the fairies?

 

The database already exists and the police already have access to the details of it.

 

Again, you're clearly not in IT. That database exists for a specific purpose.

If you want to track cyclist id's, you need a new database. And you need a way to generate the id's, allocate them, communicate them to the cyclists securely, then track the id's, maintain them and access them securely.

[RootsBooster]

No, but they do cause people problems when they are cloned.

That's... kinda my point.

You'd only face the same problems as you would with registration plate fraud. Somehow, we manage with cars.

 

Oh, well, it's trivial then, I'm sure capita could implement that for you for 50p and a box of chocolates.

You're not in IT are you.

They don't have to implement anything, you automatically get a policy number, like with any other insurance policy you take out. Part of that is displayed on your person. I've already gone through this numerous times now.

 

I saw you say £10 to £20 a year for cyclists.

Yes

No, it's just that I don't think they explain or justify what has been suggested.

Because to make the cyclist registration a legal requirement, the government would need to control and track the registration. You even mentioned the national insurance database. Who do you think built that, the fairies?

Car insurance is a legal requirement, does the government need to control and track that?

Of course I mentioned the insurance database, that's what the whole idea is based on. It already exists, you take out a policy and you're on it, no extra cost of billions.

Again, you're clearly not in IT. That database exists for a specific purpose.

If you want to track cyclist id's, you need a new database. And you need a way to generate the id's, allocate them, communicate them to the cyclists securely, then track the id's, maintain them and access them securely.

I believe you're just taking the **** now, Cyclone. I've spent the last few pages re-explaining a very simple premise to you and you're still acting like I'm talking about a whole separate system of registration.

Yes, that database exists for a specific purpose, the cycling policies could easily be a part of that purpose with no extra cost.

It'd actually be even simply than with cars - you wouldn't need to tie a reg number to a policy number as the policy number itself would be the source of the ID.

You generate a policy number the same as you do with car insurance,

You allocate them the same as you do with car insurance,

You maintain them (?) the same as you do with car insurance,

You communicate them to the cyclist just as you would with a car policy, (email or letter usually)

etc...

[Cyclone]

That's... kinda my point.

You'd only face the same problems as you would with registration plate fraud. Somehow, we manage with cars.

 

 

They don't have to implement anything, you automatically get a policy number, like with any other insurance policy you take out. Part of that is displayed on your person. I've already gone through this numerous times now.

No, I think you've changed it multiple times.

It now apparently morphed from a cyclist registration ID, to an insurance policy number that needs to be visibly displayed.

 

Car insurance is a legal requirement, does the government need to control and track that?

Yes, yes they do. That's why they've created an IT system to track it.

Of course I mentioned the insurance database, that's what the whole idea is based on. It already exists, you take out a policy and you're on it, no extra cost of billions.

I believe you're just taking the **** now, Cyclone. I've spent the last few pages re-explaining a very simple premise to you and you're still acting like I'm talking about a whole separate system of registration.

Perhaps I missed the point where cyclist registration ID changed into private insurance policy.

Yes, that database exists for a specific purpose, the cycling policies could easily be a part of that purpose with no extra cost.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

It'd actually be even simply than with cars - you wouldn't need to tie a reg number to a policy number as the policy number itself would be the source of the ID.

You generate a policy number the same as you do with car insurance,

You allocate them the same as you do with car insurance,

You maintain them (?) the same as you do with car insurance,

You communicate them to the cyclist just as you would with a car policy, (email or letter usually)

etc...

 

Yes, all maintained by our friends the not for profit insurance industry, and all for no good reason.

[monkey69]

Because other than the safety in numbers thing, nobody has put any other standing arguments forward against it. I accept that barriers to cycling might affect safety overall but I think that could well be outweighed by the benefits for all road users by identification being introduced. I think not only would many cyclists ride more responsibly but some motorists with a chip on their shoulder might actually change their attitude towards cyclists and see them as more an equal user of the road.

 

I was only giving the stop and question scenario as one example of how police could use the identification to check someone, in response to somebody who asked me how it would work. The ID number, of course, would be used in many ways.

 

Dashcams, CCTV, eyewitnesses and more can all spot an ID number and use it if necessary.

 

Why would there need to be billions spent? why would there need to be a (new) registration scheme? I've explained in detail how it would work, no new systems, no extra cost (other than £15-£20 a year to the cyclist).

 

 

see all the above

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think not only would many cyclists ride more responsibly but some motorists with a chip on their shoulder might actually change their attitude towards cyclists and see them as more an equal user of the road.

///// That will never happen. only today a black cab, two buses, and one car. not only bullied me into gutter, but one bus and the cab went through red lights!!! Now should i sent the footage into the police?. by the way i have done that before and can you guess what happened?.

BUGGER ALL.

[RootsBooster]

No, I think you've changed it multiple times.

It now apparently morphed from a cyclist registration ID, to an insurance policy number that needs to be visibly displayed.

It's been my position from page 1 (post #17), which you acknowledged on page 2 (post #27).

This and other posts are what's leading me to believe you're deliberately 'forgetting' what I've said.

Yes, yes they do. That's why they've created an IT system to track it.

You've answered your own question then, they already have their system.

Perhaps I missed the point where cyclist registration ID changed into private insurance policy.

No you didn't miss it, you first read about it on page 1 and I have explained several times in great detail since. My idea hasn't changed since page 1.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm guessing you do, which means it should be easy for you to enlighten me as to why an insurance database can't accept new policies?

 

Yes, all maintained by our friends the not for profit insurance industry, and all for no good reason.

Well of course they don't do it for free, the cost is in your insurance premium, as I've already said.

[BanjoBoy]

Quick question for all those in favour of license plates for cyclists. This came to me as I was riding home in the dark tonight. How would the licence plates work at night? Rear car registration plates are illuminated, would bike registration have to be illuminated at night?

[Cyclone]

You're right, although you never answered post 27 I think.

 

So now insurance has become compulsory, but not for people under 16 (or 12)... How bizarre, are they incapable of causing damage?

 

And I'd subsequently forgotten that everyone else was talking about registration, and you were talking about compulsory insurance.

[RootsBooster]

You're right, although you never answered post 27 I think.

 

 

 

And I'd subsequently forgotten that everyone else was talking about registration, and you were talking about compulsory insurance.

 

Okay.

Looking back, I only answered part of your post. The answer to the rest is yes, of course people under 16 or 12 are capable of causing damage. Anything that moves is capable of causing damage.

[Cyclone]

So insurance required before you can teach your 4 year old to balance on a wheelie.

And presumably also required before using a skateboard, a scooter, wheelie trainers, frisbee, nerf, toy sword...

When do you stop? If anything can cause damage (which it can, I agree) then surely the cost and implications of requiring insurance have to be balanced with the likelihood and severity of any damage? In which case, I say that cycles are low risk and low severity and so fall outside the compulsory requirement test.

[RootsBooster]

So insurance required before you can teach your 4 year old to balance on a wheelie.

And presumably also required before using a skateboard, a scooter, wheelie trainers, frisbee, nerf, toy sword...

When do you stop? If anything can cause damage (which it can, I agree) then surely the cost and implications of requiring insurance have to be balanced with the likelihood and severity of any damage? In which case, I say that cycles are low risk and low severity and so fall outside the compulsory requirement test.

I haven't said anything about insuring 4 year olds.

I don't mind discussion or even heated debate and it's rare that I get annoyed or insulted, even by people telling me that I'm not a cyclist or that I'm changing my story, when I haven't, but the frequency of your assumptions and/or presumptions is wearing a little thin.

I don't make them myself (or try not to) about others and I find it only delays and distracts from the discussion.

 

You already asked me about the minimum age at which I think insurance should be compulsory (in the hypothetical situation we are discussing) to which I answered 16.