first mate

But then you could also argue that people should not bother using lights on the back of their bike, as if a driver behind them isn't looking they'll come a cropper anyway. There is no conclusive evidence hi-vis does not work at all, if there was then I doubt the police would shell out to use it, ditto road workers, horse riders using the road, lollipop workers etc.. In fact, the government line was not about efficacy but concern that it might put off those new to cycling - I wonder where that idea came from.

Had no idea this was happening so missed it. Did many go? I would have if I had known.

Yes, woken up by that one; presumably not a wedding!

@Earl Aelfheah the idea that you are not allowed to articulate a potential problem unless you have the solution is what is truly ridiculous and is what you seem to be suggesting here. The first stage is some agreement that there is a growing problem; the challenge is in identification and policing.

@Sephiroth I agree and since most affordable courier companies now expect you to stay in for at least half a day for a delivery and even then have weasel-worded T&Cs that outline that half day 'window' as an aim not a guarantee, making it is moveable delivery 'feast', it is no wonder parcels go missing.

But surely it is obvious the issues that can arise if it is not easy to tell the difference between the two, where an illegal e-bike looks very similar to a legal one? How are you supposed to police this? I don't really get why you are nitpicking this point?

On your final paragraph, I don't doubt it. There are aggressive car drivers and they are a menace to all road users, including pedestrians. I have not yet looked at the research around hi-vis but I am confused why reflective anklets and the like are 'worth the investment' presumably because they make the cyclist more visible but hi-vis jackets don't? I then wonder why construction workers on roads, police, horse riders on the road, all wear hi-vis are they all mistaken that hi-vis jackets make them more visible? I have had a quick read and found the government response a bit odd. They did not say that the evidence for cyclists wearing hi-vis clothing is weak but just that they were worried making it mandatory might put people off cycling. What is the evidence that it might, especially when we consider that lights and reflectors are already mandatory but some are cycling without anyway?

Yes, well a lot of the above infractions also occur in daylight...just in case you had not noticed;)

No, they think there goes some kind of e-bike, I just don't believe they think there goes a motorbike or moped.

I actually think you are missing the point. It might be termed an inconvenient truth, but it possibly suits many of those riding the illegal bikes to choose not to understand the difference, and it does feel like a grey area, this allows them then to do things that pedal cyclists currently get away with, like cycling on pavements and pedestrian only places, running red lights, cycling through LTNs and areas blocked to other motorised vehicles. It is a growing problem and currently is not really being policed. I don't think the suggestion of dedicated e-bike lanes will solve this; as ever, people break the rules because they can and it suits them so to do.

A further issue is that that distinction between legal and illegal e-bikes and where they can go, seems to be clear only in the minds of a few. Over here we are seeing daily incursion of all types of cycle user (whether legal or illegal) into pedestrian only areas, increasing perception of and eventually actual risk. That is the big challenge.

Ermm and the many videos of cycle rush-hour that can be found online demonstrating the issues that some Amsterdam residents are concerned about...plus others who have visited and have a different experience from yours.

Plenty of videos out there, taken over this summer, showing cycling rush hour in Amsterdam-paints a rather different picture. Anyhow, anyone who has been to Amsterdam recently knows what it is like, it really isn't a matter of debate.

Give it a rest Earl, this is beginning to sound like your solo pursuit of personal one-upmanship.

That is true, but that short burst of intense noise can cause life-changing, long-term damage and consequences for pets and their owners. A quick internet search shows there is a developing craze for as-loud-as-possible fireworks- the emphasis is on how much of a bang they make, not on the visual aspect. What is it that people love so much about this and why do they think it is okay to impose it on everyone else? I am appalled that the government clearly have no intention of doing a thing about it. Our allegedly 'green' council should probably take a closer look. If we start having fireworks going off every night for 6 months of the year, that is going to have a variety of environmental impacts.