Motorists - What annoys you most about cyclists

Mids_Costcutter

Switzerland did have a mandatory system of number plates for bicycles (Velovignette) introduced in the 19th century, originally to resolve disputes between horse-drawn carriages and bicycles: all vehicles could then be identified. The Velovignette included personal liability insurance. However the system was abandoned last year due to the high administration costs and the fact that 90% of cyclists already had personal liability insurance anyway.

JQ.

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

Switzerland did have a mandatory system of number plates for bicycles (Velovignette) introduced in the 19th century, originally to resolve disputes between horse-drawn carriages and bicycles: all vehicles could then be identified. The Velovignette included personal liability insurance. However the system was abandoned last year due to the high administration costs and the fact that 90% of cyclists already had personal liability insurance anyway.

Could you imagine the UK Gov introducing the scheme - it would cost £billions to implement, take 10 years to introduce following budget over-runs of further £billions, only then to be abandoned after 2 years when it becomes obvious that the types of cyclists causing the problems on our roads are exactly those who would not adhere to such a scheme.

Mids_Costcutter

JQ. wrote: »

Could you imagine the UK Gov introducing the scheme - it would cost £billions to implement, take 10 years to introduce following budget over-runs of further £billions, only then to be abandoned after 2 years when it becomes obvious that the types of cyclists causing the problems on our roads are exactly those who would not adhere to such a scheme.

I think you're right: irresponsible / dangerous cyclists are probably not dissimilar in that regard to uninsured drivers who are 5 times more likely to have been involved in a crash.

I wonder also whether a registration scheme would have a negative effect on increasing cycling and all the benefits that brings.

SLITHER99

Why would a registration deter people from cycling? Innocent cyclists would have nothing to hide, surely?

Simply demand cyclists undergo a proficiency test supported by the existing licensing system; seeing as most cyclists appear to be car drivers too, it should mean that verifying such a qualification is easy. And set a date whereby all new bikes can be registered against owners, managed by the same system already in place for motor vehicles. You can even have personalised registrations, just like car drivers!

Innocent motorists have nothing to hide; the few times I've been pulled by police, I've had no problem showing my license, or allowing them to look inside my car.

Personal insurance is already available aimed directly at cyclists. Why not make it mandatory? It's mandatory for motorists? You demand equal right - in fact even priority - to use the road way; why are you adverse to a system which would aid you in time of need and offer you the same protection as the motorist? Is it because the same system could hold you to sccount if you act like a moron?

I think that's the problem.mthe law is on the side of the cyclist in every instance, which is understandable given the risks they take on the road. But there's no need to act like a moron on a bike, run red lights, be a general danger on the road and then act like a smug git about it!

Like I said, not every cyclist is a moron. But then, neither is every car driver!

brat

SLITHER99 wrote: »

Why would a registration deter people from cycling? Innocent cyclists would have nothing to hide, surely?

I don't want to have to register my bikes, and I don't ever ride illegally. I have a garage with 9 bikes in it. Should each of them be registered, or sorned if not used? Should my children's bikes be registered too?

The government wants to increase cycle usage, not reduce it. It reduces congestion and pollution. It helps the national health service. It promotes fitness and wellbeing and a healthy lifestyle. It encourages sport. It's cheap and available to all. There is no way you are going to encourage cycling by burdening it with added bureaucracy and unnecessary extra cost.

Registration is a plainly ridiculous idea. It's asking for a sledgehammer to crack a nut - completely out of proportion to any problem it might address...

...fortunately it will never happen.

Crabman

brat wrote: »

Registration is a plainly ridiculous idea. It's asking for a sledgehammer to crack a nut - completely out of proportion to any problem it might address...

How would you suggest cyclists are tracked down where they don't stop after damaging property (e.g. damaging a vehicle's wing mirror) or where they collide with a pedestrian? What about compulsory third party insurance cover to ensure any damage caused is paid for?

If you choose to have nine bikes then that's a matter for you. If I had nine cars I'd have to stomach the extra admin (and significant tax) that would come with that despite only being able to drive one at a time.

Dave_C_2

Crabman wrote: »

How would you suggest cyclists are tracked down where they don't stop after damaging property (e.g. damaging a vehicle's wing mirror) or where they collide with a pedestrian? What about compulsory third party insurance cover to ensure any damage caused is paid for?

I'll answer this with a question of my own:
How would you suggest pedestrians are tracked down where they don't stop after damaging property (e.g. damaging a vehicle's wing mirror) or where they collide with another pedestrian? What about compulsory third party insurance cover to ensure any damage caused is paid for?

Dave

JQ.

Crabman wrote: »

How would you suggest cyclists are tracked down where they don't stop after damaging property (e.g. damaging a vehicle's wing mirror) or where they collide with a pedestrian? What about compulsory third party insurance cover to ensure any damage caused is paid for?

What are the stats for that? How many £billions is this costing per year?

brat

Crabman wrote: »

How would you suggest cyclists are tracked down where they don't stop after damaging property (e.g. damaging a vehicle's wing mirror) or where they collide with a pedestrian? What about compulsory third party insurance cover to ensure any damage caused is paid for?

It mostly doesn't happen now, and the world hasn't stopped turning.

Crabman wrote: »

If you choose to have nine bikes then that's a matter for you. If I had nine cars I'd have to stomach the extra admin (and significant tax) that would come with that despite only being able to drive one at a time.

I have four bikes, three of which work. My wife has one bike, and my kids have two each, for different purposes.
Bikes for many people are a form of sport, and people will often have more than one, for different uses. Taxing and creating unnecessary bureaucracy for individual sport is something the government will never consider, because the benefits gained through people looking after themselves and keeping fit dramatically outweigh the seriously dubious benefits of bureaucracy.

Taxing and registering bikes would do nothing other than generate a loud guffaw from the fat knackers who bellow "unfair unfair" every time a cyclist gracefully filters past their motor car. They need to live a little.

SLITHER99

brat wrote: »

I don't want to have to register my bikes, and I don't ever ride illegally. I have a garage with 9 bikes in it. Should each of them be registered, or sorned if not used? Should my children's bikes be registered too?

The government wants to increase cycle usage, not reduce it. It reduces congestion and pollution. It helps the national health service. It promotes fitness and wellbeing and a healthy lifestyle. It encourages sport. It's cheap and available to all. There is no way you are going to encourage cycling by burdening it with added bureaucracy and unnecessary extra cost.

Registration is a plainly ridiculous idea. It's asking for a sledgehammer to crack a nut - completely out of proportion to any problem it might address...

...fortunately it will never happen.

Yeah, rubbish. I have a Porsche Boxter convertible which I only use during the summer months and is garaged over the winter. Thus, I have to go to the trouble of arranging insurances, taxing it, SORNing it but still maintaining it and all the rest. But that's my choice to do that, my choice to make and I adhere to the rules of motoring as directed.

I have no issue with registering my bike for general use.

Also, we are discussing registering bikes so they are uniquely identified with its owner; this is not excise duty and nobody mentioned having to SORN or display a tax disk. I'm sure, as a fellow cyclist, you've had the misfortune to have a bike nicked. Wouldn't a unique identifier at least suggest there's a greater chance of recovery? All three of my stolen cycles were never seen again.

Look, this is a suggestion which is perfectly reasonable, easily implemented, would solve a multitude of problems and would be welcomed by most road users, including cyclists. Sorry it sounds like hassle to agree to a suggestion which could potentially safeguard all road users, be they cyclists or motorists, but I would suggest its more you're taking the typical smug cyclist attitude of immunity and rubbing noses in it.