Cycling licences? Cycling number plates?? Grant Shapps' silly suggestions slammed plus tales from LEL on the road.cc Podcast

speculatrix wrote:

As far as I'm aware, bicycles have frame numbers, so why shouldn't this be formalised with visible identifiers. Buses, taxis, cars, vans and motorbikes have visible number plates, so why shouldn't bicycles?

The first registration fee for a car is £55, this would nearly double the cost of a cheap bike.

speculatrix wrote:

Many cyclists have theft insurance, it's not a stretch to imagine having combined theft and third party cover. Third party insurance wouldn't be expensive, and it would protect the rider against being sued for injuries caused in an accident, isn't that a good thing?

More cyclists have third party cover than theft cover as it is cheap when compared with theft insurance

speculatrix wrote:

Some bicycles are unsafe and unroadworthy. Other vehicles must have a mandatory test, why not bicycles. It would take just minutes and probably cost almost nothing, perhaps it should be funded entirely from gov't road safety initiatives.

MOT tests were introduced because of the problems caused by unroadworthy vehicles, there is no obvious problem caused by unroadworthy bicycles at the moment.

MOT tests were introduced because of the problems caused by unroadworthy vehicles
The requirement for a valid MOT has been abandoned by the police, in Lancashire anyway - as demonstrated by BMW MV57 GXO (I did try loading an upside down version of this photo, but it still doesn't work)

Watch out for the Demogorgon!

Or Gr0g.

Third party insurance isn't expensive considering it is bundled in with home insurance. I hope you really are not saying you have no third party liability insurance because that would be extremely foolish of you.

Can you explain why something that has a mass of 10 kg which can be propelled at 40kph ( if you are lucky) is equivalent to something of a mass of 1800 kg easily able to go 160kph ?

Can you give some estimates of the costs of registering every single bike (over 20 M) and providing them with a plate ?
Can you also explain why this is worth it given other countries who tried it decided it was not beneficial?

Are these 20M + bikes going to be MOTed out of the goodness of your LBS's heart?

Finally - do you even ride a bike ?

1: Most don't now, especially CF ones, they seem to have a very very small label. I could easily move the label to my seat stays because I got no where else to add a label on the road bike for it to be obviously seen. If it needs to be bigger like car number plates, my hybrid might have more room if I remove the panniers but then there is less reason to use it without those. Maybe they will give me a tabard witrh the registration. But then I use a backpack, and multiple layers in the winter so it would need to go over those like a poncho. But then in the summer and on the road bike, I probably wouldn't want to use one of those so I wouldn't be riding the summer bike. I would probably just get rid of the bikes, save the hassle. Unless of course you have an idea to show the registration for my bike in a Very obvious place so if I did accidently break any traffic law, it is easily observed and reported? On the helmet maybe? So every helmet would need to be redesigned for an area to be added to add this? And of course would need to be made mandatory to wear. So I couldn't hire a bike when travelling if I forgot it.

2: Surprisingly, if a cyclist has theft insurance, it covers third party as well. And if they don't the club membership might. And if they don't the house insurance might. In fact, I suspect there is more cyclists with 3rd party insurance of some kind then most people realise.

3: Did you know that after 40 years, an MOT isn't needed anymore? Weird eh. There are notor vehicles that have been manufactured in my lifetime that could be on the road without a mandatory test. What is also strange is a brand new car can leave the factory and transported halfway around the world and no one needs to certify it is road worthy. There is a reason that you mostly get blinded on the roads by new cars less then three years old. And a failure on the bike would 99% cause harm to the cyclist. A failure in the car would probably cause harm to multiple people. And again, most cyclists will get their bike serviced at a shop at least once a year, or are very good home mechanics (And the latter is supposedly the reason MOT's are not needed on 40yo+ vehicles). So what would you include in your check that is not checked by them?

45+ years of cycling and never once hit a pedestrian. I have had numerous peds force me to take evasive action to avoid a collision. It's very easy. Be observant and prepared for the unexpected. Cycle within the conditions. Also the rarity of claims against cyclists is so rare that insurance companies do not offer it due to the administrative costs which is why they offer a catch all policy to the likes of CTC or British Cycling who then cover the admin etc. 

I like many on this site will check brakes, lights and tyres daily as well as weekly checks on other parts of our bikes. How many motorists do this with their vehicles?   Also your MOT is only valid at the point in time where it is issued. The motorist has a responsibility to ensure their vehicle is road worthy at all times and not just wait until the following year. 

I suppose the untracebility of killer cyclists are a serious issue. I mean look at all those ones who have killed and got away with it. As soon as they have cycled away (if able) they have never been found again. 

More pedestrians, by orders of magnitude, are killed on the streets of the UK by collisions with knives than bicycles. Surely proportional policing would dictate that every blade is registered at purchase and requires users to display identification?

Why not number plates? Because they are not needed.

Because cars can travel very fast, there aren't many unique vehicle designs, and crucially there are a lot of them and they can do a lot of damage very easily. This means a visible identifer is very important. 

Comparitively if a cyclist does any serious damage to person / property, chances are they'll also be damaged / impeded themselves - it's not so easy for a cyclist to get away... A cyclist's identity is not protected by a generic metal surround - they are easier to identify in the unlikely event of an incident that is serious enough to warrant searching for... The potential damage a cyclist can do is far less than that of a motor vehicle - less damage, less seriousness, less need to be able to trace. 

Is insurance not a good thing? Yes, its sensible, but it's not needed

Insurance is required when an individual is unrealistically able to self insure. Motor vehicles require mandatory insurance as the potential damage they can cause can easily outstretch the financial means of the vast majority of motorists. 

Cyclists however, tend to cause very minor damage in comparison. Generally speaking, well within many peoples personal financial means. 

Insurance is therefore not needed. For confirmation of this; third party liability insurance for a cyclist is typically well under £50. That barely covers the admin cost of an insurance company setting you up. That's the level of risk a cyclist is deemed to present. 

Why not MOT bikes? Because its not needed. 

As above really... as the potential damage an unroadworthy bike can cause is so small (compared to a motor vehicle), there really isn't the need to ensure bikes are roadworthy. 

As an aside, I can't help but feel that the general quality of bikes is so low, that the frequency of relevant MOT testing would need to be far greater than annual to be at all valuable. It would cost a literal fortune to administer. 

Surprisingly number plates don't mean drivers would just have to deal with it. I heard a car horn beeping behind me when I was doing 23-25mph along a road. The car behind was several lengths back and matching my speed as there was no safe passing. Then heard it again 30 seconds later. Turned out the lady driving behind was being considerate and safe and waiting for a safe spot. It was the arsehole behind her who was beeping her and then angrily overtook her just after they both passed at considerably more then 30.