London mayor proposes number plates for bicycles

[Pebb]

Source: 4car

Turning his attention from increased regulation and taxation of car drivers, London mayor Ken Livingstone has proposed compulsory registration and number plates for bicycles.

He told London radio station LBC yesterday: 'I'm now persuaded we should actually say that bikes and their owners should be registered. There should be a number plate on the back so that the ones breaking the law, we can get them off the cameras. It's the only way you can do it.'

This comes after growing tensions between cyclists, drivers and pedestrians in the capital, with many complaints of cyclists jumping red lights or riding on the pavements. Livingstone said that he is considering a private Bill to push the legislation through; he did not say if cyclists would have to pay to register their bikes. It is estimated that there are around 450,000 journeys by bike each day in London, with the number of cyclists up 50% in the last five years.

Livingstone also said that he was looking to introduce 'jaywalking' as an offence, as in the US. This would make crossing a road anywhere other than a specified crossing, without a green light, illegal.

 

[Famine]

Cyclists and pedestrians - though they often aren't aware of it - are road users too and have a set of rules they must, and guidelines they should, obey.

If they aren't obeying them, there must be some repercussions for them.

 

[Kylehnat]

There are many, many cyclists in this area, and they all ride like crazy maniacs. They pretend to be pedestrians at times, and pretend to be cars for the rest of time. They don't follow the rules of being either. I'd laugh my ass off if I saw someone run a red light on a bike, and then get arrested.

 

[Crash]

True that cyclists and pedestrians also share the road and thus have responsbilities and rules, but bikes shouldn't have to be registered. Part of biking is that it allows kids to have a method of transportation that's faster than walking. Biking is private transportation and thus, one is not dependent upon schedules and one can go wherever they want to go to anytime. Yes, one can use the bus, but for short distances, buses are either impractical as you'll be riding only a couple of stops, or the bus system doesn't even serve that area. Plus, riding the bus costs money while riding a bike is free after the initial investment of buying the bike itself. Not to mention biking is good exercise. By forcing registration, they'll likely put some minimum age to register and to ride, require having a license to operate, tests and stuff. All that legalese are just going to scare away kids, if they even let kids ride bikes.

Now I'm not saying that bikers should own the road. They share the road with others and all should courteously share the road with each other. But to say that bikes need to be registered to catch offenders, then what's next? Ask pedestrians to wear license plates on their front and back so cameras can catch people J-walking (if it was illegal, which it is here)?

 

[MagpieRacer]

Livingstone also said that he was looking to introduce 'jaywalking' as an offence, as in the US. This would make crossing a road anywhere other than a specified crossing, without a green light, illegal.

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Famine]

True that cyclists and pedestrians also share the road and thus have responsbilities and rules, but bikes shouldn't have to be registered. Part of biking is that it allows kids to have a method of transportation that's faster than walking.

Every time someone learns to use something faster/more powerful in any other walk of life, they're required to take a test to show that they're capable of using it. Except cycling for some reason. I'm not sure how relevant this is to registration of bicycles.

Biking is private transportation and thus, one is not dependent upon schedules and one can go wherever they want to go to anytime.

So are cars, motorbikes, scooters, helicopters and so on. This isn't a particularly convincing argument against registration.

Plus, riding the bus costs money while riding a bike is free after the initial investment of buying the bike itself.

Of course - you're paying the bus company for a service. But again, not really relevant to registering bikes.

Not to mention biking is good exercise.

So is driving to the gym.

By forcing registration, they'll likely put some minimum age to register and to ride, require having a license to operate, tests and stuff. All that legalese are just going to scare away kids, if they even let kids ride bikes.

I don't know how to say this better, but GOOD.

Cyclists are road users. They ought to be trained how to use the road so that they can do so safely. Cycling on pavements is a danger to pedestrians (and illegal in the UK). Cycling on the roads can be dangerous to the cyclist, but with training and tests and stuff they can learn to minimise the danger - as we do with all other forms of personal transport (except the Segway, which no-one has a clue about).

 

[daan]

Kids generally don't use bicycles as a mode of transportation. They are a toy, a plaything.

I'm a cyclist and I have never went through a red traffic light. I obey the rules of the road as I would when I'm in my car. Do not tar all cyclists with the same "riding like maniacs" brush.

 

[Famine]

My god! The law-abiding cyclist! We've found him!

Quick, get the nets and tazers!

 

[ExigeEvan]

Every time someone learns to use something faster/more powerful in any other walk of life, they're required to take a test to show that they're capable of using it. Except cycling for some reason. I'm not sure how relevant this is to registration of bicycles.

Rollerblading, roller skating, skateboarding, unicycling, wheelchairs, electric wheelchairs, sit on lawn mowers, pogo sticks... etc

Will all these require liscenses and registration in future?

So is driving to the gym.

A gym membership is much more expensive than a bicycle and equipment.

 

[Dave A]

I just see this as another way for the government to take more money off us, the registration won't be free. They should be encouraging people to use bikes more than cars for shorter trips.

 

[G.T]

So is driving to the gym.

Buy a Koenigsegg - you won't need to go to the Gym.

I agree though, most cyclists (even I didn't know cycling on pavements are illegal) have no idea what on earth they're doing and can become a danger to themselves and others. This is why I like to stick to off-road as much as possible...

I think this license plate registration thing would be a good idea. The thing is though, people, including the government, are saying "cycle to work, school or wherever you need to go near you instead of taking a car". This might scare a few people from cycling and are contradicting themselves...

 

[daan]

They should be encouraging people to use bikes more than cars for shorter trips.

My place of work is 4 miles away from my home, and when I start at 9am (which I do every weekday), I can get to work on my bike in the same amount of time it takes to drive there.

 

[Famine]

Rollerblading, roller skating, skateboarding ... pogo sticks

Already banned on pavements.

unicycling

Cycling.

wheelchairs, electric wheelchairs

A requirement for people who need them to get around - and certain motorised wheelchairs are already required to have a registration plate.

sit on lawn mowers

Already require a licence plate if used on the roads (with certain capacity exceptions, I believe).

A gym membership is much more expensive than a bicycle and equipment.

Only if you have a cheap bike or an expensive gym.

Let me put it another way.

Cyclists are required to obey the rules of the road. Currently there is very little to enforce this. Cyclists should also require training to use the road, as they are a "faster-than-walking" mode of transportation required to use the road (in the absence of a dedicated cycle path) by law. Without correct training, cyclists are put at extreme danger - and also put other road users in danger (I'm thinking pedestrians here). A licencing system indicates whether a cyclist has passed that training or not.

Cyclists ought to be welcoming this proposal.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Already banned on pavements.

Does that include pedestrianised streets? Because I've never seen that enforced despite officers being present.

But the point is, do you believe registration should be applied to these modes of transport? My whole argument being, if you have to register bicylces, what else is going to be licenced in future.

Only if you have a cheap bike or an expensive gym.

You're kidding right?
A decent bike can be bought for £100, a helmet for £15. Chuck on some clothe syou already have (May want a flourescent jacket, that's about a £5) Grand total, £120.

If I used the local 'Community School' gym I would be required to pay £2 a session. So say I went twice a week that's £4. Now the maths.

120/4=30

That means that I could go to the gym for 30 weeks, and yet the bike would last me considerably longer.

Let me put it another way.

Cyclists are required to obey the rules of the road. Currently there is very little to enforce this. Cyclists should also require training to use the road, as they are a "faster-than-walking" mode of transportation required to use the road (in the absence of a dedicated cycle path) by law. Without correct training, cyclists are put at extreme danger - and also put other road users in danger (I'm thinking pedestrians here). A licencing system indicates whether a cyclist has passed that training or not.

Cyclists ought to be welcoming this proposal.

My logic is that cylcists, like pedestrians, are vulnerable road users. If a cyclist makes a serious mistake it's him/her that will probably come out worse. That is still usually the case even if they collide with a pedestrian.

 

[Kylehnat]

Here, in a car/cycle collision, the driver of the car is ALWAYS at fault, no matter how idiotic the cyclist was being. I've seen cyclists doing some incredibly stupid things, including running red lights and stop signs. They also like to pass people on the shoulder, and then re-enter traffic wherever they please. As a driver, it's impossible to know what the knucklehead is going to do next. He might just decide to pass you on the right, and then cut across your bow to make a left turn (which I've also seen). Daan, kudos on riding like a sane person. I'm sure that there are others like you, but they certainly don't live here.

Rollerblading, roller skating, skateboarding, unicycling, wheelchairs, electric wheelchairs, sit on lawn mowers, pogo sticks... etc

Will all these require liscenses and registration in future?

I don't rollerblade or ride the lawnmower on the street.

Anything that uses a public street as a way to get from point A to point B should be licensed, and the operator trained.

 

[ExigeEvan]

I don't rollerblade or ride the lawnmower on the street.

Anything that uses a public street as a way to get from point A to point B should be licensed, and the operator trained.

No but both allow you to travel faster that walking pace.

And why would you pogo stick on the street but not rollerblade?

 

[Famine]

Does that include pedestrianised streets? Because I've never seen that enforced despite officers being present.

Yes, it does.

But the point is, do you believe registration should be applied to these modes of transport?

Are they required to use the road by law? If so, yes.

My whole argument being, if you have to register bicylces, what else is going to be licenced in future.

Anything that is required to use the road by law.

You're kidding right?
A decent bike can be bought for £100, a helmet for £15. Chuck on some clothe syou already have (May want a flourescent jacket, that's about a £5) Grand total, £120.

A helmet is not required by law. Lights and visible clothing are though.

If I used the local 'Community School' gym I would be required to pay £2 a session. So say I went twice a week that's £4. Now the maths.

120/4=30

That means that I could go to the gym for 30 weeks, and yet the bike would last me considerably longer.

On the other hand you could actually register at a gym for £53 a year.

My logic is that cylcists, like pedestrians, are vulnerable road users. If a cyclist makes a serious mistake it's him/her that will probably come out worse. That is still usually the case even if they collide with a pedestrian.

Motorcyclists are vulnerable road users. Cars are vulnerable road users, compared to vans, lorries, buses and coaches.

They key part is that they are road users. Use the road? Then you should be trained in using it - after all we train and test drivers (passenger, PSV, LCV and HGV) and motorcyclists (including mopedophiles).

And your stat about cyclist collisions with pedestrians is not true.

167 reported pedestrian/cycle collisions in 2002 resulted in 170 pedestrian injuries (3 fatal, 40 serious) and 38 cyclist injuries (1 fatal, 9 serious).

The cyclist is 3 times less likely to die and 4 times less likely to be injured.

 

[ExigeEvan]

A helmet is not required by law. Lights and visible clothing are though.

Visible clothing is not required by law, hwoever you are right, lights are. (Reference, www.highwaycode.gov.uk)

On the other hand you could actually register at a gym for £53 a year.

Still makes the bicycle cheaper over a relatively short time of just over 2 years.

And your stat about cyclist collisions with pedestrians is not true.

The cyclist is 3 times less likely to die and 4 times less likely to be injured.

Fair enough.

 

[Famine]

Still makes the bicycle cheaper over a relatively short time of just over 2 years.

Though you can visit the gym for as long as you want, every day...

Still, the ultimate point is that bicycles are road vehicles. As such they should require training in their use and should require registration - if they are to be used on public roads. You'd get a pretty good upper-body workout driving a TVR Griffith every day - that isn't a valid reason for one to be tax exempt.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Though you can visit the gym for as long as you want, every day...

Are you implying that you couldn't cycle whenever you wanted?
What's more tempting than cycling in 5degree C with the rain running down your neck and puddles soaking your socks?


Okay point taken.

Still, the ultimate point is that bicycles are road vehicles. As such they should require training in their use and should require registration - if they are to be used on public roads. You'd get a pretty good upper-body workout driving a TVR Griffith every day - that isn't a valid reason for one to be tax exempt.[/color][/b]

In an ideal world I'd agree. But bikes are much more complicated to police than cars due simply to price and availability. And by introducing further cost to cyclists would merely be a backwards step in trying to tempt people form their cars and on to greener modes of transport.

 

[Famine]

Are you implying that you couldn't cycle whenever you wanted?
What's more tempting than cycling in 5degree C with the rain running down your neck and puddles soaking your socks?


Okay point taken.

In an ideal world I'd agree. But bikes are much more complicated to police than cars due simply to price and availability. And by introducing further cost to cyclists would merely be a backwards step in trying to tempt people form their cars and on to greener modes of transport.

It doesn't have to "cost" anything - rather it can be factored into the price of the bike, as vehicle registration is.

 

[ExigeEvan]

What about the training and the test?

 

[Famine]

Well, it's about time they used Vehicle Excise Duty for something related to the roads - rather than giving it all to the health service and the fire wasters. I mean brigade.

 

[vladimir]

ultimately you car drivers are just miserable because you can't run red lights as easily as cyclists can.

 

[standard235]

Kids generally don't use bicycles as a mode of transportation. They are a toy, a plaything.

I'm a cyclist and I have never went through a red traffic light. I obey the rules of the road as I would when I'm in my car. Do not tar all cyclists with the same "riding like maniacs" brush.

Tool. Not toy.

 

[standard235]

I think there's a lot of stupid in this thread. It's ok, Famine.


I ride a lot. Like, 6 hours a day. Cops think they are gonna save the world making sure you don't skateboard or ride. You can't do these things on the town square now. They say all public sidewalks too. Except we have people who can't ****ing drive around here, and I've almost been hit probably 15 times. Honest story. Riding on the sidewalk, I get told by a cop to ride in the street. Ok, so I go in the street. Not even 5 mins later, I get a cop yelling at me to get on the sidewalk where I belong. I'm sorry. That's BS.


I can only maintain 20mph on my bike, 35mph if I had my 9 spd cassette on. People around here don't pay attention. Don't say cycling is cheaper though, my bike is worth about $2k

 

[ExigeEvan]

I can only maintain 20mph on my bike, 35mph if I had my 9 spd cassette on. People around here don't pay attention. Don't say cycling is cheaper though, my bike is worth about $2k

But your bike is abit more than a basic point-to-point bike isn't it?

 

[daan]

I ride a lot. Like, 6 hours a day.... I've almost been hit probably 15 times.

Well, if you ride a lot than you will come into near contact with cars. 15 times is not a lot if you ride 6 hours a day. Why are you riding 6 hours a day in a town though?

Except we have people who can't ****ing drive around here,

We have people that can't drive here too. You have people that can't drive everywhere. Some drivers panic and don't know what to do. The number of people who sit behind you for ages before they chug past in too high a gear is unreal.

The problem as I see it is, one side does not know what the other side is going to do. The driver is unaware of what the cyclist is doing, while having a fair idea what the car in front is going to do. Every driver should be made to cycle through traffic to get an idea of what its like.

The other problem is that most drivers are using a car to get from A to B and are not the least bit interested in how they do that.

Riding on the sidewalk, I get told by a cop to ride in the street. Ok, so I go in the street. Not even 5 mins later, I get a cop yelling at me to get on the sidewalk where I belong. I'm sorry. That's BS.

One of the cops is wrong. Here in the UK, its illegal to ride on the pavement. Bikes belong on the road.

Don't say cycling is cheaper though, my bike is worth about $2k

Cycling is cheap. It's your choice your bike cost 2 grand. (Mine cost £800) As has been pointed out earlier, you can get a perfectly useable bike for £150.

Oh, and please don't double post.

 

[Dave A]

Tool. Not toy.

Kids use them as a toy, when I was a kid I'd go out for a ride on my BMX with a few mates we'd just muck about in and around one of the fields nearby, practice wheelies and bunny hops and that stuff. When I was a kid my bike was never a tool, always a toy. I don't ride bikes now but if I did now, it would be as a tool.

 

[daan]

I don't ride bikes now but if I did now, it would be as a tool.

I know you didn't mean it that way....