glenn forger
Guest
Fewer ffs.
Latest online debate about cyclist registration and insurance
- Thread starter dodd82
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Rancid
Active Member
- Location
- Saff Landin
glenn forger
Guest
Nazis, ffs.
glenn forger
Guest
Skip all that, it's never going to happen, and the journalist has heavily edited his piece, it's totally different now.
jonny jeez
Legendary Member
- Location
- Chislehurst, Kent, UK
I believe you SHOULD have to gain a "special licence"... but only to ride within the boundary's of any City. Whether you Cycle, drive a Car or choose to Motorcycle.
Hold on, before you all flame me, consider it for a second.
A one day course, run by CTC or some other respected cycle body for a nominal fee , Say £20.This takes you through YOUR rights as a cyclist and explains basic stuff that WILL keep you safe and make you a better city rider How to use/not use lanes, negotiating Junctions, observation, ASL's, safe(er) filtering, Shared use areas, CSH zones. Over 30,000 people have read our own "essential guide" post above, so clearly there is an appetite to understand how to stay safe
Then you sign an agreement, your license, to cycle by the rules of the road whilst within the boundary of the City, you cant later deny that you didn't know the rules or plead any ignorance.
Then you head off, for life, better trained and better equipped. Car drivers can't moan, you are better trained then them, they cant grumble about the rules, you know them better than them ...all is well, you are well informed and everyone knows you are well informed.
No plates or discs or identification required...just ride
Should you subsequently be caught breaking the terms of your licence, you will have to produce your licence and receive points, a number of which end in the removal of your licence and your inability to ride in the city again, until your ban is removed.
I see it more of an agreement to conduct myself in an appropriate manner, which I am more than happy to do as a matter of course.
I don't believe in this because it just polices US, I truly believe it will help to remove the guff and nonsense that some motorists (thankfully very few) believe and spout. It will also help to eradicate the idiots that I believe spoil it for the rest of us and create friction where it needn't exist.
Then we move on to introduce the same system on Car Drivers and Motorcyclists.
If anyone can tell me how this would be a bad thing, I am genuinely interested because I cant see a downside. It would weed out anyone not interested in staying safe and anyone not prepared to agree to the rules that exist to keep us all safe.
Hold on, before you all flame me, consider it for a second.
A one day course, run by CTC or some other respected cycle body for a nominal fee , Say £20.This takes you through YOUR rights as a cyclist and explains basic stuff that WILL keep you safe and make you a better city rider How to use/not use lanes, negotiating Junctions, observation, ASL's, safe(er) filtering, Shared use areas, CSH zones. Over 30,000 people have read our own "essential guide" post above, so clearly there is an appetite to understand how to stay safe
Then you sign an agreement, your license, to cycle by the rules of the road whilst within the boundary of the City, you cant later deny that you didn't know the rules or plead any ignorance.
Then you head off, for life, better trained and better equipped. Car drivers can't moan, you are better trained then them, they cant grumble about the rules, you know them better than them ...all is well, you are well informed and everyone knows you are well informed.
No plates or discs or identification required...just ride
Should you subsequently be caught breaking the terms of your licence, you will have to produce your licence and receive points, a number of which end in the removal of your licence and your inability to ride in the city again, until your ban is removed.
I see it more of an agreement to conduct myself in an appropriate manner, which I am more than happy to do as a matter of course.
I don't believe in this because it just polices US, I truly believe it will help to remove the guff and nonsense that some motorists (thankfully very few) believe and spout. It will also help to eradicate the idiots that I believe spoil it for the rest of us and create friction where it needn't exist.
Then we move on to introduce the same system on Car Drivers and Motorcyclists.
If anyone can tell me how this would be a bad thing, I am genuinely interested because I cant see a downside. It would weed out anyone not interested in staying safe and anyone not prepared to agree to the rules that exist to keep us all safe.
OP
OP
dodd82
Well-Known Member
Jonny jeez - it's an interesting topic. I find myself reading both sides of the argument and agreeing.
I think the general objection to registration is the effect it would have on cycling. Numbers would plummet - no question. How many of the casual Boris Bike users would bother? That can't be a good thing.
Also, I am really struggling to understand it's purpose.
There are schemes that you can take if you wish to learn about cycling. That's logical, if people feel they need to be educated to protect themselves.
But cyclists aren't a danger to others.
Isn't that the reason that motor vehicles are registered?
I just don't know what problem it would solve, yet it would add millions to the tax payer's bill, for enforcement, if nothing else.
I see the logic and agree with you in parts, but I think these would be my main objections.
I think the general objection to registration is the effect it would have on cycling. Numbers would plummet - no question. How many of the casual Boris Bike users would bother? That can't be a good thing.
Also, I am really struggling to understand it's purpose.
There are schemes that you can take if you wish to learn about cycling. That's logical, if people feel they need to be educated to protect themselves.
But cyclists aren't a danger to others.
Isn't that the reason that motor vehicles are registered?
I just don't know what problem it would solve, yet it would add millions to the tax payer's bill, for enforcement, if nothing else.
I see the logic and agree with you in parts, but I think these would be my main objections.
The Cycle Proficiency Course as done by most 11 year olds in school in the 60's and 70's
BentMikey
Rider of Seolferwulf
- Location
- South London
Just bring over more Dutch culture, none of that silly stuff for cyclists, who aren't really largely different from pedestrians anyway.
I get that you're taking the yellow rain, but we DO do that sort of thing for pedestrians. It's called the Green Cross Code (or whatever its present day incarnation is called), and parents teaching their kids how to cross safely. Okay, you don't get a licence after, but the idea is the same. You teach people how to do it safely. The main difference is that most people can and do walk from the age of 2. Cyclists are usually made later in life, and it's a vastly smaller percentage of the population compared to pedestrianism, since everyone who rides a bike (save for some of those disabled cyclists) walks, but not vice versa.
A good 'basic idea' to be expanded upon is the idea of being given a safety course when you buy a bike. Perhaps only when it's your first bike, and ideally free, paid for from the profits/tax from the bike's cost. And maybe the buyer can dismiss the course by ticking a checkbox.
The problem I find with that is that people who ride like bell-ends ride stupidly because they don't care about riding properly, not because they don't know how to.
OP
OP
dodd82
Well-Known Member
It's a little facetious, but it's a valid point.
Drunk 'kids' in town centres are an irritant. Should we make anyone that wants to go out drinking sign up for a registration before they do it?
Legislation is rarely the answer to society's ills, and it feels as if the only reason for registration would be to try and curb the people that are becoming irritated.
That is a self-defeating approach... we should be trying to change the mentality, not bowing down to it.
Drunk 'kids' in town centres are an irritant. Should we make anyone that wants to go out drinking sign up for a registration before they do it?
Legislation is rarely the answer to society's ills, and it feels as if the only reason for registration would be to try and curb the people that are becoming irritated.
That is a self-defeating approach... we should be trying to change the mentality, not bowing down to it.
But Dodd82's post said "should have to" - why does it need to be compulsory? The Green Cross Code isn't compulsory either. Perhaps we can try wherever possible to trust cyclists - or pedestrians, or even urban foxes - to seek guidance if they feel they need it. All of what is described is available if you want it. It does not need to be compulsory, and the cost and hassle of making it compulsory would easily outweigh any benefits. Why should I pay £20 (and IMHO it would never be this cheap, a CBT is £100+ in London) to learn what is readily available elsewhere for free and can be gained through experience?
OP
OP
dodd82
Well-Known Member
Not sure you meant me, did you?
Correct, sorry meant JonnyJeez - didn't want to take up a load of space by re-quoting his post!
OP
OP
dodd82
Well-Known Member
No worries!
