snorri
Legendary Member
- Location
- East coast, up a bit.
Yes, that's quite good going but there's room for improvement, the protagonist lacks the chuckle factor of bff.8 pages in one evening
Cycles/cyclists to be licenced
- Thread starter col
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
OP
OP
col
Legendary Member
Whats bff?Yes, that's quite good going but there's room for improvement, the protagonist lacks the chuckle factor of bff.
vernon
Harder than Ronnie Pickering
- Location
- Meanwood, Leeds
Broken flip flop. Trollmeister extraordinaire.
His thread on the behaviour of his bin men was far more entertaining than this one. His responses were outrageously funny for most part.
His thread on the behaviour of his bin men was far more entertaining than this one. His responses were outrageously funny for most part.
OP
OP
col
Legendary Member
Ah right , cheers.
Since this thread seems to have descended into a bit of a Silly Cyclist Row, can I suggest that Col (and others) read the following investigation by Toronto City Council.
As for the bike registration question, Col, may I suggest you read http://www.regtransfers.co.uk/main/car_numberplates_regulations.asp and consider how you would write up the relevant ones for bikes, viz: BMXs, recumbents, mixte and ladies frames, TT bikes, MTBs, including full sus models, etc., as each would require a different set of regs as to size and placement for each. Unless, of course it would be your intention that all future bikes should be constructed to meet the requirements of a consistent placement and size of plate?
Of course, if the suggestion that the plate be attached to the crossbar, then any cyclists committing an offence would probably get away with it unless a) witnesses were sideways on and b) they could read it round the rider's legs and, of course, c) the plates could be made big enough to fit on a BMX.... etc., etc. If, on the other hand, the plates should be placed at right angles to the bike, how and where would you suggest they be fixed?
Then there is the question of numbers. More bikes are sold every year than cars, so you are suggesting a system which would immediately double the existing cost of collecting the tax, while not meeting the additional cost because no legislature has yet managed to do so. Then there is the question which someone else mentioned, i.e. SORN. You would, if you were a fairweather cyclist, have to notify Swansea that you were not using your bike between, say, October and March.
Failure to abide by these regulations would, naturally, lead to a whole new batch of offences concerning non-compliance, none of which would have anything to do with improving the safety of cyclists, pedestrians or any other road users, but would only be designed to ensure that this total pointless exercise would be adhered to.
Pursuit of cyclists in the courts for non-safety related offences would then lead to accusations of a "War on cyclists" which was a cynical ploy to raise money and this, together with the massive increase in bureaucracy would lead to a campaign by the Daily Mail - do you really want them on our side?
Works and Emergency Services
David C. Kaufman, P.Eng.
Acting Commissioner
City Hall, 24
th
Floor East Tower
100 Queen Street West
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2N2
2005 BUDGET BRIEFING NOTE - Licensing Cyclists
and/or Bicycles
History of Bicycle Licensing in Toronto:
· The City of Toronto required bicycles to be licensed and to display a licence plate in 1935. The by-law was repealed in 1956.
· In the past 20 years licensing cyclists and/or bicycles has been investigated on at least three occasions by the City:
Ø 1984 – concern with bicycle theft
Ø 1992 – concern with sidewalk cycling and compliance with Highway Traffic Act (HTA)
Ø 1996 - concern with sidewalk cycling and compliance with Highway Traffic Act (HTA)
· In the three instances described above, City Council rejected licensing cyclists/bicycles for a variety of reasons, including:
· the high cost to develop and administer a licensing program;
· the difficulty in dealing with cyclists crossing the municipal boundary into the City;
· the challenge of licensing children as well as adults; and
· lack of support by the Toronto Police Service and the Ontario Ministry of Transportation.
Two Kinds of Licence:
It is important to distinguish between the two different kinds of licence and their different purposes.
· Vehicle Licence – to put a licence plate on a bicycle for easier identification, either for theft prevention or traffic law enforcement.
· Operator Licence – to ensure that cyclists achieve a minimum level of knowledge and competence before being permitted on the roadway.
Reasons for Licensing Cyclists and/or Bicycles:
Licensing cyclists and/or bicycles is most frequently proposed as a means to:
· prevent bicycle theft or to assist in returning a stolen bicycle to its owner;
· improve compliance with the law by cyclists;
· assist the public to report cyclists who have committed HTA or municipal by-law infractions;
and
· enable police officers to ticket cyclists who have committed traffic offences.
2 Bicycle Licence is Ineffective in Preventing Theft:
· Developing and maintaining a bicycle licence system would be a costly undertaking -- there are more than 2,000,000 bicycles owned by City of Toronto residents.
· Bicycle licensing has proven ineffective as a means to prevent theft because a licence plate or decal is easily removed.
· Most North American cities which at one time required bicycles to be licensed, including the former City of Toronto, have discontinued their programs. Many of these programs charged a small registration fee intended to offset the cost of administering the program.
· Toronto Police Service provide a free service to register bicycle serial numbers so that stolen bicycles can be identified and returned to their owner, if recovered by police.
Increasing Enforcement of Cyclist Infractions Does Not Require Licensing of Cyclists:
· Cyclists are subject to the same HTA rules and fines as drivers.
· At the request of the City of Toronto, the Province of Ontario amended the Highway Traffic Act in 1989 to require cyclists to identify themselves when stopped by a police officer, to aid in effective enforcement.
· A cyclist or bicycle licence is not required in order for a cyclist to be charged under the HTA or Municipal By-law.
· Toronto police can and do enforce traffic rules for cyclists, including at least one “Cycle Right” campaign in the Spring of each year.
· There is a perception that having a licence plate on the back of a bicycle would enable citizens to report errant cyclists and have the police issue a ticket, however;
Ø a licence plate identifies the vehicle not the vehicle operator;
Ø a ticket is issued to the vehicle operator not the vehicle (red light camera violations are the exception - provincial legislation was enacted to enable red light camera offences to be issued against the vehicle owner rather than the driver).
· There is a perception that the police do not ticket cyclists often enough or as often as they could, however the police must balance their limited traffic enforcement resources against competing enforcement needs. For example, there is an average of 68,700 reported motor vehicle collisions every year in the City of Toronto – bicycles are involved in 1.8 percent of those reported collisions.
· Licensing cyclists is not likely to change the priority bicycle enforcement receives vis a vis other enforcement priorities.
· If police bicycle-enforcement resources are to be increased, it would be more effective for police officers to focus on increased enforcement of the existing traffic rules for cyclists rather than enforcing compliance with a licensing requirement.
Improving Cyclist Compliance with Traffic Rules is the Main Objective:
· Requiring cyclists to pass a written and road test to obtain a licence to operate a bicycle on the road would ensure a minimum level of knowledge and competence for all cyclists.
· Requiring a bicycle operator's licence without a knowledge and skills test as a prerequisite would not achieve any safety benefit and could be perceived as a user fee.
· Establishing and maintaining a testing and licensing program would be a massive undertaking – there are 939,000 cyclists age 16 and older in the City (data for younger cyclists is not available).
3 · Requiring a cyclist operating licence raises a number of questions, including:
ØHow do you develop licensing requirements for both adults and children?
ØDo you prohibit cycling on the road for cyclists under a certain age?
Ø
Are occasional cyclists, who may ride primarily on pathways, subject to the same
requirements as frequent cyclists who ride primarily on the road?
ØCan cyclists from other jurisdictions (tourist and residents of adjacent municipalities) be expected to obtain a licence to use City of Toronto roads?
· Previous investigations into licensing have concluded that, if cyclists are to be licensed, it should be the responsibility of the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) - similar to drivers' licences.
· In 1992 and 1996, the City asked MTO to comment on the feasibility of licensing cyclists. MTO responded in 1992 by stating that it would cost $24.80 per cyclist (same cost as licensing drivers) to operate a licensing program, not including the database or program development costs.
· While it appears there is potential to generate revenue from a bicycle or cyclist licensing program, if the cost is too high many cyclists will not comply. In order for the program to be effective, strict and consistent enforcement of the licensing requirement will be required. This could divert the limited enforcement resources away from enforcing the existing traffic rules for cyclists.
· In 1996 MTO advised the City that the Ministry did not support a provincial bicycle licensing scheme because “such schemes, apart from being administratively and financially burdensome, do not increase bicycle safety practices…”
·
Both MTO and the Toronto Police Service have advised, in the past, that education and enforcement are more cost-effective means to improve cyclist knowledge, skills and general compliance with traffic rules.
Conclusions:
·Bicycle licences are not effective in preventing bicycle theft;
·A cyclist operating licence is not required for police officers to enforce the existing traffic
rules;
·Developing a cyclist testing and licensing system would be expensive and divert attention
from enforcing the existing traffic rules for cyclists; and
· Providing more resources for cyclist education and training and increased police enforcement
would be a more cost-effective approach for improving safety.
If Council wishes to pursue a City of Toronto bicycle or cyclist licensing program, the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division of Urban Development Services would be responsible for developing and operating such a program. Any proposal to test and license cyclists should be
developed in consultation with the Ontario Ministry of Transportation.
Prepared by: Daniel Egan, Manager, Pedestrian and Cycling Infrastructure,
Transportation Infrastructure Management, Transportation Services
(416-392-9065)
Circulated to: Works Committee Members
Date: December 23, 2004
As for the bike registration question, Col, may I suggest you read http://www.regtransfers.co.uk/main/car_numberplates_regulations.asp and consider how you would write up the relevant ones for bikes, viz: BMXs, recumbents, mixte and ladies frames, TT bikes, MTBs, including full sus models, etc., as each would require a different set of regs as to size and placement for each. Unless, of course it would be your intention that all future bikes should be constructed to meet the requirements of a consistent placement and size of plate?
Of course, if the suggestion that the plate be attached to the crossbar, then any cyclists committing an offence would probably get away with it unless a) witnesses were sideways on and b) they could read it round the rider's legs and, of course, c) the plates could be made big enough to fit on a BMX.... etc., etc. If, on the other hand, the plates should be placed at right angles to the bike, how and where would you suggest they be fixed?
Then there is the question of numbers. More bikes are sold every year than cars, so you are suggesting a system which would immediately double the existing cost of collecting the tax, while not meeting the additional cost because no legislature has yet managed to do so. Then there is the question which someone else mentioned, i.e. SORN. You would, if you were a fairweather cyclist, have to notify Swansea that you were not using your bike between, say, October and March.
Failure to abide by these regulations would, naturally, lead to a whole new batch of offences concerning non-compliance, none of which would have anything to do with improving the safety of cyclists, pedestrians or any other road users, but would only be designed to ensure that this total pointless exercise would be adhered to.
Pursuit of cyclists in the courts for non-safety related offences would then lead to accusations of a "War on cyclists" which was a cynical ploy to raise money and this, together with the massive increase in bureaucracy would lead to a campaign by the Daily Mail - do you really want them on our side?
Works and Emergency Services
David C. Kaufman, P.Eng.
Acting Commissioner
City Hall, 24
th
Floor East Tower
100 Queen Street West
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2N2
2005 BUDGET BRIEFING NOTE - Licensing Cyclists
and/or Bicycles
History of Bicycle Licensing in Toronto:
· The City of Toronto required bicycles to be licensed and to display a licence plate in 1935. The by-law was repealed in 1956.
· In the past 20 years licensing cyclists and/or bicycles has been investigated on at least three occasions by the City:
Ø 1984 – concern with bicycle theft
Ø 1992 – concern with sidewalk cycling and compliance with Highway Traffic Act (HTA)
Ø 1996 - concern with sidewalk cycling and compliance with Highway Traffic Act (HTA)
· In the three instances described above, City Council rejected licensing cyclists/bicycles for a variety of reasons, including:
· the high cost to develop and administer a licensing program;
· the difficulty in dealing with cyclists crossing the municipal boundary into the City;
· the challenge of licensing children as well as adults; and
· lack of support by the Toronto Police Service and the Ontario Ministry of Transportation.
Two Kinds of Licence:
It is important to distinguish between the two different kinds of licence and their different purposes.
· Vehicle Licence – to put a licence plate on a bicycle for easier identification, either for theft prevention or traffic law enforcement.
· Operator Licence – to ensure that cyclists achieve a minimum level of knowledge and competence before being permitted on the roadway.
Reasons for Licensing Cyclists and/or Bicycles:
Licensing cyclists and/or bicycles is most frequently proposed as a means to:
· prevent bicycle theft or to assist in returning a stolen bicycle to its owner;
· improve compliance with the law by cyclists;
· assist the public to report cyclists who have committed HTA or municipal by-law infractions;
and
· enable police officers to ticket cyclists who have committed traffic offences.
2 Bicycle Licence is Ineffective in Preventing Theft:
· Developing and maintaining a bicycle licence system would be a costly undertaking -- there are more than 2,000,000 bicycles owned by City of Toronto residents.
· Bicycle licensing has proven ineffective as a means to prevent theft because a licence plate or decal is easily removed.
· Most North American cities which at one time required bicycles to be licensed, including the former City of Toronto, have discontinued their programs. Many of these programs charged a small registration fee intended to offset the cost of administering the program.
· Toronto Police Service provide a free service to register bicycle serial numbers so that stolen bicycles can be identified and returned to their owner, if recovered by police.
Increasing Enforcement of Cyclist Infractions Does Not Require Licensing of Cyclists:
· Cyclists are subject to the same HTA rules and fines as drivers.
· At the request of the City of Toronto, the Province of Ontario amended the Highway Traffic Act in 1989 to require cyclists to identify themselves when stopped by a police officer, to aid in effective enforcement.
· A cyclist or bicycle licence is not required in order for a cyclist to be charged under the HTA or Municipal By-law.
· Toronto police can and do enforce traffic rules for cyclists, including at least one “Cycle Right” campaign in the Spring of each year.
· There is a perception that having a licence plate on the back of a bicycle would enable citizens to report errant cyclists and have the police issue a ticket, however;
Ø a licence plate identifies the vehicle not the vehicle operator;
Ø a ticket is issued to the vehicle operator not the vehicle (red light camera violations are the exception - provincial legislation was enacted to enable red light camera offences to be issued against the vehicle owner rather than the driver).
· There is a perception that the police do not ticket cyclists often enough or as often as they could, however the police must balance their limited traffic enforcement resources against competing enforcement needs. For example, there is an average of 68,700 reported motor vehicle collisions every year in the City of Toronto – bicycles are involved in 1.8 percent of those reported collisions.
· Licensing cyclists is not likely to change the priority bicycle enforcement receives vis a vis other enforcement priorities.
· If police bicycle-enforcement resources are to be increased, it would be more effective for police officers to focus on increased enforcement of the existing traffic rules for cyclists rather than enforcing compliance with a licensing requirement.
Improving Cyclist Compliance with Traffic Rules is the Main Objective:
· Requiring cyclists to pass a written and road test to obtain a licence to operate a bicycle on the road would ensure a minimum level of knowledge and competence for all cyclists.
· Requiring a bicycle operator's licence without a knowledge and skills test as a prerequisite would not achieve any safety benefit and could be perceived as a user fee.
· Establishing and maintaining a testing and licensing program would be a massive undertaking – there are 939,000 cyclists age 16 and older in the City (data for younger cyclists is not available).
3 · Requiring a cyclist operating licence raises a number of questions, including:
ØHow do you develop licensing requirements for both adults and children?
ØDo you prohibit cycling on the road for cyclists under a certain age?
Ø
Are occasional cyclists, who may ride primarily on pathways, subject to the same
requirements as frequent cyclists who ride primarily on the road?
ØCan cyclists from other jurisdictions (tourist and residents of adjacent municipalities) be expected to obtain a licence to use City of Toronto roads?
· Previous investigations into licensing have concluded that, if cyclists are to be licensed, it should be the responsibility of the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) - similar to drivers' licences.
· In 1992 and 1996, the City asked MTO to comment on the feasibility of licensing cyclists. MTO responded in 1992 by stating that it would cost $24.80 per cyclist (same cost as licensing drivers) to operate a licensing program, not including the database or program development costs.
· While it appears there is potential to generate revenue from a bicycle or cyclist licensing program, if the cost is too high many cyclists will not comply. In order for the program to be effective, strict and consistent enforcement of the licensing requirement will be required. This could divert the limited enforcement resources away from enforcing the existing traffic rules for cyclists.
· In 1996 MTO advised the City that the Ministry did not support a provincial bicycle licensing scheme because “such schemes, apart from being administratively and financially burdensome, do not increase bicycle safety practices…”
·
Both MTO and the Toronto Police Service have advised, in the past, that education and enforcement are more cost-effective means to improve cyclist knowledge, skills and general compliance with traffic rules.
Conclusions:
·Bicycle licences are not effective in preventing bicycle theft;
·A cyclist operating licence is not required for police officers to enforce the existing traffic
rules;
·Developing a cyclist testing and licensing system would be expensive and divert attention
from enforcing the existing traffic rules for cyclists; and
· Providing more resources for cyclist education and training and increased police enforcement
would be a more cost-effective approach for improving safety.
If Council wishes to pursue a City of Toronto bicycle or cyclist licensing program, the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division of Urban Development Services would be responsible for developing and operating such a program. Any proposal to test and license cyclists should be
developed in consultation with the Ontario Ministry of Transportation.
Prepared by: Daniel Egan, Manager, Pedestrian and Cycling Infrastructure,
Transportation Infrastructure Management, Transportation Services
(416-392-9065)
Circulated to: Works Committee Members
Date: December 23, 2004
Oh, and by the way, since I don't think this has been mentioned so far, VED is based, as I'm sure we all know, on vehicle emissions and those which have very low or zero emissions get their VED disc FOC, which means that Swansea would have to issue 3,000,000 VED discs every year and get nowt' back from the cyclists. Which would lead to total outrage on the part of the Daily Mail, the Sun and Jeremy Clarkson
If you think that was taking it seriously, you haven't seen me in serious mode. If you wish, I will take it seriously and provideeven further (and ample) evidence of the utter absurdity of all such proposals.1728426 said:
I am afraid that if such proposals are put forward on a cycling forum, they will be taken seriously by the present government and we will be on a very slippery slope to official oppression of cyclists, the creation of a special corps of cyclist cops to monitor, arrest and punish us, headed by Jeremy Clarkson and the full panoply of new laws specially formulated to actually discourage us from riding and for us to be eventually be restricted to cycling bantustans and subject to pass laws.
Of course I take it seriously
And I require the rest of you to do so as well
classic33
Leg End Member
Having tried to get both my Brox & bicyle licenced I've got this to say.
At present the DVLA will only deal with Motor vehicles. Cost to motorists would see their VED rise by as little as £50. That'd please them.
To get either the Brox, easily identifiable round here (its the only one), or the bike requires the bike to undergo a recognised preset approved standard manufacturing proceedure. Different for each type of material used and components used. "Non standard construction" would require that the vehicle be submitted to an SVA. Name has changed, I'm aware. It would then be stamped with its own unique number. It would also be required to undergo an impact test at this stage. This test would write the vehicle off.
This number would then allow you proceed to the next level. Applying for the registration number. In order to gain this you are required to provide the date of maufacture, maufacture, model, fuel type used & engine size. Also emmisions test to be carried out. They also require that the vehicle be brought to a local testing station to see that it matched the description and that it was as stated, an MOT in its most basic form.
Get that done & you'd be able to move onto the owners details. You are not asked if anyone else would be using the vehicle. Thats covered by the insurance people.
You cannot mount the number plate in any area that would restrict the visibily of any lighting or reflectors legally required & they most not be mounted anywhere that will interfere with either the vehicle drive chain or hinder control of the vehicle. They cannot be mounted on the handlebars for safety reasons. Thin sheet of metal/plastic can do a lot of damage to unprotected skin. Plastic more so if it were to break upon impact, which is why motorbikes only have rear plates.
As I've said elsewhere I drove the local DVLA office mad trying to get the correct paperwork & for all of the above testing you are required to pay.
At present the DVLA will only deal with Motor vehicles. Cost to motorists would see their VED rise by as little as £50. That'd please them.
To get either the Brox, easily identifiable round here (its the only one), or the bike requires the bike to undergo a recognised preset approved standard manufacturing proceedure. Different for each type of material used and components used. "Non standard construction" would require that the vehicle be submitted to an SVA. Name has changed, I'm aware. It would then be stamped with its own unique number. It would also be required to undergo an impact test at this stage. This test would write the vehicle off.
This number would then allow you proceed to the next level. Applying for the registration number. In order to gain this you are required to provide the date of maufacture, maufacture, model, fuel type used & engine size. Also emmisions test to be carried out. They also require that the vehicle be brought to a local testing station to see that it matched the description and that it was as stated, an MOT in its most basic form.
Get that done & you'd be able to move onto the owners details. You are not asked if anyone else would be using the vehicle. Thats covered by the insurance people.
You cannot mount the number plate in any area that would restrict the visibily of any lighting or reflectors legally required & they most not be mounted anywhere that will interfere with either the vehicle drive chain or hinder control of the vehicle. They cannot be mounted on the handlebars for safety reasons. Thin sheet of metal/plastic can do a lot of damage to unprotected skin. Plastic more so if it were to break upon impact, which is why motorbikes only have rear plates.
As I've said elsewhere I drove the local DVLA office mad trying to get the correct paperwork & for all of the above testing you are required to pay.
snorri
Legendary Member
- Location
- East coast, up a bit.
vernon
Harder than Ronnie Pickering
- Location
- Meanwood, Leeds
1728387 said:
I miss him
vernon
Harder than Ronnie Pickering
- Location
- Meanwood, Leeds
Humungous snip [...]
Never have so many electrons been expended to deliver so little extra to what has already been said.
vernon
Harder than Ronnie Pickering
- Location
- Meanwood, Leeds
1728604 said:
I'll re-word it then.
I miss his absurd contributions to absurd responses to his absurd threads.
I have spotted sensible posts from him in other forums.
Honest!
