Cycle riders and licence plates

[Cyclone]

You haven't explained why 15 year olds are free to ride about causing damage with no consequence though.

 

Or indeed how a policeman seeing such a cyclist can tell the difference between me not wearing my bib, and a 15 year old who doesn't require one...

 

There were more than just you and me involved in the discussion, so if I forget that you've answered something, I can only apologise for that.

Alternatively, I might come back to a question because I found your previous answer to be unsatisfactory.

Like this arbitrary cut off at 16, it makes no sense, and it makes the idea even more unworkable than it ever was.

[WalkleyIan]

On the topic of compulsory cycling tabards you head toward a situation where no one can leave the house without wearing hiviz unless they are in a car.

 

Is that really the type of street you want to live on?

 

http://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/local/rutland-mum-launches-high-visibility-campaign-1-6321892

 

My ultimate aim is that it should be made compulsory for children to use visibility bags or wear fluorescent jackets to school in the winter months to, hopefully, reduce the number of kids who get hit by cars,” she said.

 

“The Government needs to make it law.”

[Cyclone]

Why cycling is great for everyone – not just cyclists

Mass cycling could save the NHS £17bn in 20 years, cut 500 road deaths a year and reduce smog, says a new study for British Cycling

 

But not if we create barriers to entry.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/oct/16/why-cyling-is-great-for-everyone-not-just-cyclists

[WalkleyIan]

The Govt has just released its Cycling Action Plan, no mention of number plates

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/364287/141015_Cycling_Delivery_Plan.pdf

 

A lot of information relates to breaking down barriers to choice of travel mode. A few cut and pastes

 

 

​The Government's vision is that every child who can walk or cycle to

school should do so. In 2006/07 the Bikeability cycle training programme

was launched, and over 1 million young people have been trained to the

National Standard. The Government will now investigate how parents

and children can be further supported in travelling safely and sustainably

to school and will endeavour to continue funding Bikeability training post

2015/16.

 

The Government is committed to taking steps to both improve safety for

cyclists and pedestrians, and to help break down any barriers that relate

to safety. Therefore two groups are led by the Department for Transport -

the Cycle Safety Group and the Justice for Vulnerable Road Users

Group. These focus on specific safety and justice issues, and will be

expanded to more explicitly cover pedestrian issues, as well as cycling

issues.

 

Actions that will be taken to Develop a series of behaviour change projects to promote cycling and walking as a normal, accessible activity available to all

[gordius]

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.

 

Hmm. In my experience (and I do a lot of cycling) the worst group of offenders for riding on the pavement, terrorising pedestrians, running red lights, cycling at night with no lights on etc.. are teenage males - by a long long way.

[SportsTrophy]

I like the idea of behaviour change over engineering. Should be seeing more of Paul McKenna hopefully as an advisor and everyone to read his self improvement books as part of road craft.

[Cyclone]

I was trying to design, in my mind, some sort of tram track crossing device for cycles.

 

I had in mind some sort of pop up, or slide out section, installed only at certain points, that would be spring loaded to slide a grippy surfaced cover over a metre of track.

It would have some sort of mechanism attached that would cause it to retract as the tram wheels pushed against it (a mechanical lever, not electronic sensors), so it would always be out of the way of the tram and would spring back afterwards.

 

This could be installed at all the points cyclist might need to cross tracks, stops, junctions, where the track turns off, etc... The cyclists can aim for this point, and have no (or at least reduced) danger of a slip and accident on the track...

[RootsBooster]

You haven't explained why 15 year olds are free to ride about causing damage with no consequence though.

Why would there not be consequences?

The parents are legally responsible for dependant children up to the age of 18. As some children might be 'independant' by the age of 16, I think this would be the suitable age.

 

Or indeed how a policeman seeing such a cyclist can tell the difference between me not wearing my bib, and a 15 year old who doesn't require one...

It would all depend on the circumstances, just like any other occasion when the police need to check that someone is who he/she says they are.

 

For a start, it'd depend on why the policeman would need to know if the cyclist is a certain age or insured. If some offence has been committed and the policeman has stopped the cyclist, then he would most likely need to know who the person was so that he can verify the age (and therefore necessity for insurance). If the cyclist is carrying no identification then it would be up to the police officer what happens next.

 

I'm not familiar with the procedures in place but I know that they come across similar situations (in general, not necessarily cyclists) every single day.

 

There were more than just you and me involved in the discussion, so if I forget that you've answered something, I can only apologise for that.

Alternatively, I might come back to a question because I found your previous answer to be unsatisfactory.

Like this arbitrary cut off at 16, it makes no sense, and it makes the idea even more unworkable than it ever was.

See above

 

---------- Post added 18-10-2014 at 12:29 ----------

 

Hmm. In my experience (and I do a lot of cycling) the worst group of offenders for riding on the pavement, terrorising pedestrians, running red lights, cycling at night with no lights on etc.. are teenage males - by a long long way.

 

In my experience (and I do a lot of cycling, walking and driving) the worst offenders have always been adult males, mostly putting themselves at risk more than others.

 

---------- Post added 18-10-2014 at 12:42 ----------

 

On the topic of compulsory cycling tabards you head toward a situation where no one can leave the house without wearing hiviz unless they are in a car.

 

Is that really the type of street you want to live on?

 

http://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/local/rutland-mum-launches-high-visibility-campaign-1-6321892

 

My ultimate aim is that it should be made compulsory for children to use visibility bags or wear fluorescent jackets to school in the winter months to, hopefully, reduce the number of kids who get hit by cars,” she said.

 

“The Government needs to make it law.”

 

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

Edited October 18, 2014 by RootsBooster

[gordius]

In my experience (and I do a lot of cycling, walking and driving) the worst offenders have always been adult males, mostly putting themselves at risk more than others.

 

I'm pleased you do a lot of cycling and walking. But you're plain wrong. Anyway, whatever... you still advocate a silly, unworkable system of compulsory insurance that would cost the taxpayer far more to implement than any revenue it would bring in; that would result in more cars on the road hence more congestion and more potholes; and that won't make a blind bit of difference to the rate of occurrence of the offences you describe - after all compulsory insurance doesn't stop drivers speeding, running red lights, illegally parking on the pavement etc etc.... does it?

 

Do you not think it's a better idea to put more money into enforcing the laws that already exist against this sort of thing - to target the small minority of offenders rather than putting barriers in the way for the vast majority of decent law-abiding cyclists?

 

Anyway, dream on because it's never going to happen.

[RootsBooster]

I'm pleased you do a lot of cycling and walking. But you're plain wrong.

Wrong about what?

 

Anyway, whatever... you still advocate a silly, unworkable system of compulsory insurance that would cost the taxpayer far more to implement than any revenue it would bring in; that would result in more cars on the road hence more congestion and more potholes;

How would it cost the taxpayer anything and why would it be unworkable?

and that won't make a blind bit of difference to the rate of occurrence of the offences you describe - after all compulsory insurance doesn't stop drivers speeding, running red lights, illegally parking on the pavement etc etc.... does it?

I've made no claims that insurance would prevent anyone from doing anything and I have no such expectations, what are you talking about?

 

Do you not think it's a better idea to put more money into enforcing the laws that already exist against this sort of thing - to target the small minority of offenders rather than putting barriers in the way for the vast majority of decent law-abiding cyclists?

where would that money come from?

 

Anyway, dream on because it's never going to happen.

I don't expect it to, I've been asked questions and provided answers, that's all.