Cyclists WON'T need number plates — Grant Shapps again insists "we're not going to do number plates"

Because?

Motor vehicles like cars, lorries etc. are supposed to be, but lots aren't.  We have a test for those (once a lifetime) and drivers still crash into illuminated retroreflective bollards, bridges, police cars, each other, drive on the pavement and kill pedestrians etc.

Our existing rules could be making us safer of course.  Or maybe it's more down to car manufacturers and better infrastructure plus maybe the odd social factor (drink driving somewhat less popular, more wear seatbelts)?

I think everyone getting instruction (as kids) on the basics of road use - including both pedestrian and whatever conveyances they're allowed (cycle, scooter, wheelchair ...) would be a good idea.  That in itself doesn't keep everyone safe though.

Anyway, crack on. I'm not a lawyer but you probably want to get "vehicle" defined.  Our current laws are having fun with that with a collection of definitions starting from the age of horse-drawn transport up to a couple of years ago.

I'm assuming you're after better road safety?  I'm all for road danger reduction.  Not being a expert I tend to go have a look at places with better records or people who do look at this in detail.  Not seeing anything from these folks which suggests that more of the same would be safer.

https://www.roadpeace.org/

https://rdrf.org.uk/

https://www.pacts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/PACTS-What-kills-most-on-the...

We could use more enforcement though!  As the occasional police campaign shows some drivers (often "criminals" in a larger sense) turn out to be a major safety hazard.  That still won't *stop* road deaths occurring of course.

You mentioned mobility vehicles in another post.  Would you like to see something like this?  I think this looks positive (especially compared to the UK) - what's your take?

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/who-else-benefits-from-the...

You realise grant shapps has changed his mind on this.
When cyclists cause as much damage as cars then there might be argument for insurance.
How many £Ms of damage and associated costs did that range rover driver on the A40 cause earlier in the week?

Can't wait to hear your views on hi viz and helmets.

NotBlindedByCyclistsBS wrote:

If it's a vehicle on the road it should be licenced, taxed, insured, and the person using it should pass a test to show they can safely use it.

"Happy 7th Birthday son, here's your new bike"

"Thanks Dad, can I go for a ride now?"

"Sorry son, first you'll need to pass the written theory test"

"Then can I ride it"

"No, then you need to book your practical test and pass that"

"Then?"

"No, then you need to register it with the DVLA and get a number plate fitted"

"Then?"

"No, then you need to find an insurance company that will insure a 7 year old"

"Then?"

"No, then you need to pay for your road tax"

"Then?"

"Yes son, you will then be safe to ride on the road as you are licenced, taxed and insured"

"But Dad, wasn't the driver who knocked Mum over on that zebra crossing licenced, taxed and insured?"

"Yes they were son, yes they were"

UK traffic law is perfectly capable of distinguishing between vehicles generally which includes cycles and motor vehicles. This has come up before in discussion, for example, the legislation surrounding overtaking cyclists at pedestrian crossings, which though a bit foolish is not actually illegal.

You appear to express an opinion or possibly only a parroted phrase that you have picked up somewhere unsavory which is really not worth listening to.

You are just jealous because people on bikes are having fun and doing something you are not capable of.

I have met you bitter Daily Mail types before, you blame the world for all of your problems and lash out at minorities because you are looking for someone to blame for your circumstances.

This month it will be cyclists, next month it might be black people or disabled people or benefit claimants, etc, etc, in fact any minority group you think is below you and vulnerable you will belittle and bully them.

Give this number a ring: 116 123

It's the Samaritans and I doubt that they will be able to help you, but they will point you in the right direction to get the help you so obviously need to carry on with your life like a normal human being.

Hang on a moment!  This poster is only 3 comments in!  They say they were hit by a cyclist while using a mobility vehicle.  You might pick up a strong negative focus on people on bikes after that.  Look what a RTA did to CyclingMikey!

Now - this poster does seem to be here with a bingo card, but maybe give them benefit of the doubt?  One person was right in there after a single post!  Unless you're privy to their identity e.g. they're one of our undead?

In general there seems to be truth in the theory that non-cyclists hate cyclists because they're in the way / going faster than us (e.g. by filtering past cars).  You could say "jealousy" but I'd suggest it's our sense of "fairness" getting tripped.  The cyclists appear to be cheating.  They're using the same road but getting benefits while avoiding the costs / annoyances / restrictions on others e.g. drivers.  We should recognise this is a fundamental feature of humans.  Like many other monkeys we get irrationally angry if we follow the rules but another monkey gets the grape.  Additionally we don't take it out on the designer / legislator but the "cheat" (e.g. cyclist).

I'd say that yet another benefit of cycling infra / mass cycling is it dilutes that feeling.  Cycling is then clearly "something separate" with their own areas and rules.  So there is less feeling of competition for the same resources (space).  Then there's also a softening of "us and them" if cycling is something you do yourself sometimes or your friends and relatives commonly do.  I don't see motorists shaking their fists at train passengers passing them...

spen wrote:

He got what he wanted, the approva of the mail readership, and raised his profile a bit and now sits back safe in the knowledge that mail readers won't care about his retraction and hopefully secure in a cushy ministerial post with the next PM.  And all it took was a little hate on cyclists.  Cheap at a tenth of the price

100% this.

No amount of backtracking or 'clarification' will change anything, the message is loud and clear - that people on bicycles are a problem.

steaders1 wrote:

There is still time for a U turn with this Govt.

I'm hoping that's a joke.  All the people in this government were selected and appointed by the biggest liar, cheat, hypocrite and coward to ever enter public office in the UK.  All of the backbenchers supported Boris the Liar for years, and only started opposing him when it looked as if they might lose votes themselves.  The whole shower of them should resign en masse, not one of them is fit to govern; you can't reform incompetence, dishonesty and sycophancy.