Lord Winston calls for urban cyclists to be licensed and insured

miekwidnes wrote:

Just wondering how much this scheme would cost to administer. Experience would suggest that such national scheme - including registration website, payment methods, links to Law enforcement etc etc - would be quite a lot

SO - how much do you charge - difficult to work out as many people would probably just stop cycling as it would be too much hassle

So - it would end up being an overal charge to the exchequer - i.e. we all end up paying for a scheme that makes people less healthy, moves people away from a good way of tacking obesity, is unenforceable (less face it the Police can't enforce the current cycling laws - which is part of the problem

And no - obviously - you can't enforce a car style reg plate on all bike - it won't fit!!!

 

This all comes under the same category as compulsory helmet - which Chris Boardman covered quite well!

I wouldn't worry, this idea will go precisly nowhere.

brooksby wrote:

Peter Walker in the Grauniad has picked up on this:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/mar/18/should-cyclists-be-licensed-and-insured-robert-winston

"So, to summarise: your mooted plan would be to introduce a hugely convoluted new administrative scheme that would most likely have limited effect on the behaviour of an averagely law-abiding group of transport users who very rarely harm others, and have a huge net positive impact on the nation,.......

Apart from the one gigantic typo, an excellent article.

Jetmans Dad wrote:

The thing is that Lord Winston claims to be a scientist and yet appears not to understand how the buden of proof works. 

He is claiming that cycle infrastructure leads to an increase in pollution. He is making the claim, therefore he is responsible for supplying the evidence that backs up his claim ... there is no responsibility on others to provide evidence proving him wrong. At least not until he has presented the evidence he is using to back up his position. 

If he provides no evidence, his position can (and should) be dismissed and ignored. 

 

He's a politician first and foremost, so he knows that he can push the populist buttons and get the hard of thinking whipped up into a frenzy.  

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

He's a politician first and foremost, so he knows that he can push the populist buttons and get the hard of thinking whipped up into a frenzy.  

I know ... I am just endlessly frustrated that we have people in politics who should know better but don't. It's almost as if the first thing that happens when you become a politician is the surgical extraction of your actual areas of expertise and critical thinking faculties. 

Jetmans Dad wrote:

I know ...  It's almost as if the first thing that happens when you become a politician is the surgical extraction of your actual areas of expertise and critical thinking faculties morals and empathy. 

FTFY

Jetmans Dad wrote:

The thing is that Lord Winston claims to be a scientist and yet appears not to understand how the buden of proof works. 

He is claiming that cycle infrastructure leads to an increase in pollution. He is making the claim, therefore he is responsible for supplying the evidence that backs up his claim ... there is no responsibility on others to provide evidence proving him wrong. At least not until he has presented the evidence he is using to back up his position. 

If he provides no evidence, his position can (and should) be dismissed and ignored. 

 

As a scientist, he should know that the starting position for a scientific theory is to start with the "null hypothesis", which is a statement which you attempt to prove false.

If you are unable to prove it to be false, then you must conclude that your experiment proves it to be true.

Perhaps this is what he has done here. His null hypothesis being: "Cyclists cause increased congestion and air pollution; licensing and insuring them would reduce air pollution and congestion"

I look forward to his paper, perhaps to be published in the Annals of Improbable Research (https://www.improbable.com/)

alexb wrote:

Jetmans Dad wrote:

The thing is that Lord Winston claims to be a scientist and yet appears not to understand how the buden of proof works. 

He is claiming that cycle infrastructure leads to an increase in pollution. He is making the claim, therefore he is responsible for supplying the evidence that backs up his claim ... there is no responsibility on others to provide evidence proving him wrong. At least not until he has presented the evidence he is using to back up his position. 

If he provides no evidence, his position can (and should) be dismissed and ignored. 

 

As a scientist, he should know that the starting position for a scientific theory is to start with the "null hypothesis", which is a statement which you attempt to prove false.

If you are unable to prove it to be false, then you must conclude that your experiment proves it to be true.

Perhaps this is what he has done here. His null hypothesis being: "Cyclists cause increased congestion and air pollution; licensing and insuring them would reduce air pollution and congestion"

I look forward to his paper, perhaps to be published in the Annals of Improbable Research (https://www.improbable.com/)

 

Isn't it more that cycling lanes (not cyclists per se) cause more pollution, by reducing space for polluting vehicles, therefore slowing them? But then this assumes the unbelievably arrogant and idiotic position that drivers of polluting vehicles have the unquestioned right to be on the road as much as they like without restriction, while cyclists do not, or should not, have that right.  Why? It's not a payment-for-rights issue. Roads are paid for from general taxation, cyclists are just as likely to be taxpayers as motorists.

More cyclists could not cause more pollution in any immediately obvious circumstance. I remember reading somewhere, in Richard's Bicycle Book I think, that cyclists actually leave the air (minimally) cleaner by absorbing pollutants.

Isn't it blindingly obvious that internal combustion engines, as the cause of pollution, should be increasingly limited, not cycling, which in any fair assessment decreases pollution. Duh.

 

 

And another thing (to carry on with the blindingly obvious): if all those cyclists 'causing' more pollution were to travel by car instead, the congestion would be astronomical and so would the increase in pollution.

I suspect this is yet another example of the moronic assumption that cyclists are inferior to motorists, and should be punished for taking away any space at all from cars. Just because bikes in general cost less than cars, and cyclists don't have to pay VED. Whereas of course cycling is far superior to car use in every way. GRRRRR Splutter ****!###!

brooksby wrote:

Licence to ride a bike?  OK, so will this have an age limit?  Will he say that people under, say, 15 don't need one, or will he simply ban all minors from riding a bike?  If he sets an age limit, then is he saying children are inherently safer than adults?  What evidence would he produce for this??

Insurance? Would this only affect people who weren't a member of BC or CUK?  How would it be demonstrated?  Bike registration plates (don't get me started) or tied to frame number or to the rider (see comments on age, above)?  Would you have to be separately insured to drive more than one bike?  How would they be able to tell if you were insured or not, until and unless you were in a collision which caused property damage?

(And how many motorists were estimated to be on the road without a driving licence or insurance, again... ?) 

I think your error is in assuming that rightard fucks actually need to rely on 'evidence' when playing to what is nowadays an equally rightard populace.  

caw35ride wrote:

Poor old fella. He had a great mind once, you know.

I'm not sure he ever did. 

https://qz.com/967554/the-five-universal-laws-of-human-stupidity/