We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Motorists - What annoys you most about cyclists
Comments
-
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!
The effect of all these measures which you suggest would be a downturn in cycling in a country that already has low levels of cycling. That would have a negative impact on all road users not just those that cycle.
Cyclists and pedestrians can be held to account already. Under UK highway law all road users are equal.0 -
Mids_Costcutter wrote: »The effect of all these measures which you suggest would be a downturn in cycling in a country that already has low levels of cycling. That would have a negative impact on all road users not just those that cycle.
Cyclists and pedestrians can be held to account already. Under UK highway law all road users are equal.
Theres no real evidence to say whether it would or wouldn't. If having to fill in a registration form when you buy a new bike would put you off biking for life, then you're either chronically lazy, or you have something to hide.
In my experience, some road users are more equal than others...0 -
Theres no real evidence to say whether it would or wouldn't. If having to fill in a registration form when you buy a new bike would put you off biking for life, then you're either chronically lazy, or you have something to hide.
In my experience, some road users are more equal than others...
The extra cost would put off some potential cyclists.0 -
I play by the rules, and I get a bit of a buzz from driving cars too.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,
I had a bike nicked in the sixties, entirely my fault, left unlocked outside the local swimming pool. Never since. It happens, of course it does, cars are stolen and sold on too, and they're registered. All they need is a purchaser who doesn't ask too many questions when he sees a bargain.
You're in dreamland if you believe that registering bikes could "potentially safeguard all road users"! How that then?
I cycle as much as I use my own car, which is about 4,000 miles a year each. Not very much of either really. I do many more miles in my work vehicle, and I can't say I've been particularly bothered by the shenanigans of some cyclists. If I can, I'll deal appropriately with a cyclist who is riding illegally, but I've generally more pressing things to do.but I would suggest its more you're taking the typical smug cyclist attitude of immunity and rubbing noses in it.
So, like you, I can see things from both sides. I don't care for the antics of illegal cyclists because of the way they make you and others feel towards me, a law abiding cyclist.
I simply don't agree, for many rational reasons, that several tranches of bureaucracy against cyclists will have anything other than a negative outcome.
You disagree. I can live with that.Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
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
That post makes no sense since you've copied mine word for word and substituted the word "pedestrians" for "cyclists". There are statistics to support my reference to damage caused by cyclists to third-party property where the cyclist couldn't be traced. I'm not sure that this point translates well to pedestrians.
To state the obvious fact that seems to have alluded some of the great minds on this thread, a motorist can easily be tracked with a numberplate. Someone on foot can easily be apprehended by others on foot, pending arrival of the police. This is not as easy with a fleeing cyclist. Hope that is simple enough...0 -
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.
The same way they tracked down the taxi driver who left me for dead on the road.
Oh wait,no they never found him/her
so how does him/her being registered and licensed change that again?0 -
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.
every frame I have owned has a serial number.
Every bike I own(owned) has a datatag fitted
still not heard how this will be easily implemented0 -
I can assure you that's the story in its entirety. I didn't notice if the bike had lights or not, I wasn't try to look out of a fogged-up windscreen or window. I was waiting for my QuickClear to do its job
And I was more concerned about the boy who was obviously in a state of stress having just hit me!
In any case, my insurance legal team were on my side and were equally as flabbergasted by the judgement. In my limited experience, insurance companies don't go to the trouble of going up the steps unless they think there's a reasonable chance of winning!
Either way, I'm glad I had the legal cover. My premiums went up, which was rather unwelcome being a young driver, but such is life.
As the judge said (not verbatim). I was in charge of a motor vehicle and I was not paying due attention and therefore was not in a position to prevent the accident, as I was looking for a CD at the time. My honesty killed me there, I think! It's the same deal if you're over the limit and sitting in the driver's seat of a running car. You're still drunk driving even if you have no intention to drive and just trying to use the car's heater. No experience of that myself, of course! More a story relayed to me some time ago of a drunk guy, having lost his house keys, sat in his friend's running car to warm up while he was running off for a spare from a relative who lived over the road.
Just to clarify, the offence for that action is not 'drink driving', but 'drunk in charge', which is a different offence, with significant case law defence. Unlike drink driving, the punishment does not include obligatory disqualification.
The only way the drunk guy would have been convicted of the drink driving offence is if the court believed beyond reasonable doubt that he was the driver, and the story of the mate running off for spare keys was... well... a little far fetched!Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
every frame I have owned has a serial number.
Every bike I own(owned) has a datatag fitted
still not heard how this will be easily implemented
I already said... The licensing and registration schemes already in places, just adapted to include cycles!
I've no intention to tax cycling, more keep check on it.
If the police were to discover your £2000 racing bike, wouldn't it be nice to get it back to you somehow?0 -
Just to clarify, the offence for that action is not 'drink driving', but 'drunk in charge', which is a different offence, with significant case law defence. Unlike drink driving, the punishment does not include obligatory disqualification.
The only way the drunk guy would have been convicted of the drink driving offence is if the court believed beyond reasonable doubt that he was the driver, and the story of the mate running off for spare keys was... well... a little far fetched!
Fair enough. As I say, it was told to me some time ago, I'm simply relaying it - and I'm no lawyer 0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards