How to Normalise Cycling in East Dulwich

[LadyDeliah]

So they cycle on the pavements then or do you propose banning cycling for under 16s?

Same rules as cars? Big massive number plates, annual MOTs, vehicle excise duty (at ?0 as no emmissions) etc.

Not sure anyone would bother cycling and the negative effect on public health and NHS spending would far outweigh any possible benefit (although I fail to see a benefit) of any such changes.

[Horsebox]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So they cycle on the pavements then or do you

> propose banning cycling for under 16s?

>

> Same rules as cars? Big massive number plates,

> annual MOTs, vehicle excise duty (at ?0 as no

> emmissions) etc.

>

> Not sure anyone would bother cycling and the

> negative effect on public health and NHS spending

> would far outweigh any possible benefit (although

> I fail to see a benefit) of any such changes.

Quite. I learned to ride on the road when I was 10 or 11 and given the size of some 14/15 year olds, I'd rather not see them riding on pavements.

Given the aim of this thread was to encourage people to cycle, Loz and e-dealer's ideas are very much out of place.

['bout now]

For no balance whatsoever and mindful of where this thread is going, I conducted my own statistical analysis during my 11 mile commute (by bike) to work and I saw;

11 cyclists ignore redlights (6 at pedestrian crossings, with no peds on them and 5 going across traffic junctions, idiots)

4 cyclists who really need to take some basic training as they were a danger to themselves and others.

8 drivers texting

countless drivers on the phone

4 drivers checking emails

14 jumping lights at Vauxhall bridge

And every driver applying brakes before the speed camera on the Embankment next to VB.

I personally lost count of Pedestrians walking out into the road either texting, lost in music or in one case, applying make up.

So out of that lot who's the bad guy? Lets make sure everyone is insured and taxed, including pedestrians shall we?

Or we could all put our own houses in order especially in London as lets face it, unless you work from home, cycling is the most effective and reliable commute available to all and its only going to increase.

[the-e-dealer]

I'm sure it comes a surprise to many but the Highway Code applies to Cyclists. So yes most rules applying to cars also apply to Cycles.

[edhistory]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In 2009 DoT recorded 271 accidents involving

> pedestrian and cyclist and c.19,000 involving

> pedestrian and car.

Sanity check required.

John K

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And Loz, I'm still waiting for your detailed breakdown on how all this extra registration and

> insurance would work, especially when it comes to kids.

Insurance: For kids up to a certain age, parents would have legal responsibility for insurance. What happens now when a child causes damage? The parents are responsible for paying out.

As far as registration goes, as TED said, the same as cars. A legal owner, who must identify any rider on request. It could be incorporated into the current DVLA registration system very easily.

What's so difficult?

[LadyDeliah]

And what about multiple bikes or shared bikes. You still haven't said where you propose to put the registration plate or how big it should be to be of any use in policing your new regime.

So you don't think pedestrians, roller bladers, skateboarders and drinkers should have to take out compulsory insurance to guard against any damage they cause others? If not, why not?

['bout now]

that'd be the end of Boris Bikes then.

[the-e-dealer]

Boris Bike will work the same way as car hire. Why does it seem so difficult?

['bout now]

"Ooh look a Boris bike, I'm going to jump on that as the tubes buggered."

"Fill this form in, we'll do some background checks and you'll be free to go in around 40 mins."

Not really the idea of cheap, available transport is it?

[LadyDeliah]

What I'm trying to understand is why they want to single out cyclists. We've all given examples of other classes of person who cause as much or more damage than cyclists when engaging in other activities, but the anti-bike lobby have no burning desire to impose compulsory registration or insurance on them.

So if the criteria isn't about insuring against various levels of damage that may ensue from an activity, what is the logic behind the idea to force cyclists to register and take out insurance?

Just beacuse you have in illogical prejudice against cyclists perhaps?

[northlondoner]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Registration and insurance is a sensible step

> forward, and the arguments against them are pretty

> weak to non-existent at best... and a weak attempt

> at distraction at worst."

>

> I haven't actually seen you articulate the

> supposed benefits of registration and insurance

> yet, so please go ahead. When someone suggested

> that the time, effort and cost in setting this up

> would be better spent pursuing uninsured drivers,

> you seemed to regard that as somehow absurd, yet a

> comparable cost/benefit analysis is the most

> sensible approach, no? The Dep of Transport have

> access to more and better stats than most so it's

> not difficult - they know pretty much to the penny

> what the real cost of road accidents are, and

> they're very good at modelling what the likely

> effect of changes to rules or road layouts will

> be. That's why, for instance, urban 20mph zones

> have proliferated.

>

> Obviously, if you have no interest in benefiting

> the wider public but just have an irrational,

> deep-seated resentment of cyclists then your

> stance makes perfect sense.

Victimhood and sainthood. An unedifying mix.

Surely ALL road users should be traceable and accountable?

The false binary of cycle good/car bad or vice versa does not assist matters .

[LadyDeliah]

the-e-dealer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm sure it comes a surprise to many but the

> Highway Code applies to Cyclists. So yes most

> rules applying to cars also apply to Cycles.

And no-one has said otherwise.

In my expereience the worst offenders are cars, not cyclists and given the massive danger to others posed by car drivers texting, talking on their phones, applying lipstick etc, I am surprised people want to use so much of or finite resources cracking down on cyclists rather than motorists.

Maybe we should have a proportionate policing response. Equal to the percentage of motorised transport compared to cyclists, then add to that the likely seriousness of any damage caused by flouting the Highway code by the two groups and finally deduct the savings to the NHS by cyclists being healthier and allocate the 'crackdown' resources accordingly.

I'd happily pay more tax for that as my commute to work (on my bike) would be much safer.

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What I'm trying to understand is why they want to single out cyclists. We've all given examples of

> other classes of person who cause as much or more damage than cyclists when engaging in other

> activities...

Ah, the whataboutery argument again. If all else fails, try the whataboutery argument.

By your argument, if I can think of a few more dangerous things than cars (e.g. motorbikes, per km ridden) then we should abandon registration and insurance for cars. But that is a silly argument.

Why cyclists? Because a bicycle is a vehicle travelling on roads. All other vehicles on the roads require registration. Why should bikes be any different? So a better question is, 'Why NOT cyclists'?

Your only arguments so far is that a) oooh, it a bit difficult (it's not) and b) there are other dangerous things in life. Not really good arguments, are they?

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe we should have a proportionate policing

> response. Equal to the percentage of motorised

> transport compared to cyclists, then add to that

> the likely seriousness of any damage caused by

> flouting the Highway code by the two groups and

> finally deduct the savings to the NHS by cyclists

> being healthier and allocate the 'crackdown'

> resources accordingly.

And you think registering bicycles was a bit hard? Good luck with that little equation. And since we are adding savings to the NHS, you really should add in VED and fuel taxes if you are going to be fair. And a million other criteria, no doubt.

Anyway, I'd be happy with that. As soon as all bikes are carry visible registration, the policing of them would be really rather cheap to implement. A small percentage of the road traffic budget would be perfectly adequate.

[mynamehere]

The government abandoned plans for compulsory ID a bit back. The cost was prohibitive at about ?100. Hmm pretty cheap and it could be used right through the spectrum of this conversation (show your ID in a situation) and as a travel document like other countries have. To follow up on a point by Lady D. Thinking for 30 seconds this is my list: I know 3 dead here in London, 1 (now adult) brain damaged and physically disabled in the USA, 1 (now adult) brain damaged and physically disabled in France. That was 30 seconds for cars, no driver caught or prosecuted. For bikes: (long pause) lots of falling off scrapes and scratches mostly caused through sports off the road. I have a car and I use it when I need to and a bike.

[LadyDeliah]

There are other road users that don't need to be registered. Granted not many; Horses, roller bladers & the occasional skateboarder spring to mind.

Maybe we should look at why cars and other motorised vehicles are expected to be registered and insured for a more logical approach. The history of registration of cars relates to their inherent dangerousness and had nothing to do with them being users of the road:

By the turn of the century, interest in the motor car was increasing, but there was widespread dissatisfaction with the poor state of the roads. Indeed, the report on the Emancipation Run had stated that ?the roads were filthy, and the cars progressed through a deep sea of mud, over surfaces of the most sodden and heavy going character?. Soon the number of vehicles in use had reached 5,000, creating ever more hazards for other road users. And it was difficult to identify the offenders of the few regulations that existed.

Consequently, The Motor Car Act 1903 introduced measures to help identify vehicles and their drivers. All motor vehicles were to be registered, and to display registration marks in a prominent position.

Extract from the DVLA website: http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7t9v6ntR6yYAR.pXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1MWoxZXM1BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1NNRTA0MV8xMTY-/SIG=147e3oinh/EXP=1367104239/**http%3a//www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/@motor/documents/digitalasset/dg_180212.pdf

Cyclists pose no such danger and there is consequently no need to introduce the same regulation as is necessary in relation to motorised vehicles, which are huge pieces of metal, lethally propelled at great speed and causing a large number of fatalities a year.

Cycling poses much the same risk to others as a number of other common activities, none of which require the participants to register on some database and carry prominently displayed identifying numbers.

Equating cycling with driving, just because they share the road, is nonsensical for all of the many and detailed reasons above written by me and other posters.

But you have failed to engage with the arguments put forward, instead repeating your prejudiced and illogical viewpoint as if repetition gives it more weight.

If you can't see why compulsory registration and insurance is a bad idea by now, then there seems to be little point in attempting to explain any further.

[LadyDeliah]

Loz, you want to add car taxes into the equation, ok, lets also add all the pollution costs to the NHS and people's lives into the equation and the cost of injury and death.

Also that comment had nothing to do with registration, it was in response to ted's comment on enforcement ofthe Highway Code. I do not advocate compulsory registration or insurance for cyclists at all.

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe we should look at why cars and other motorised vehicles are expected to be registered

> and insured for a more logical approach. The history of registration of cars relates to their

> inherent dangerousness and had nothing to do with them being users of the road:

>

> By the turn of the century, interest in the motor car was increasing, but there was widespread

> dissatisfaction with the poor state of the roads. Indeed, the report on the Emancipation Run had

> stated that ?the roads were filthy, and the cars progressed through a deep sea of mud, over

> surfaces of the most sodden and heavy going character?. Soon the number of vehicles in use had

> reached 5,000, creating ever more hazards for other road users. And it was difficult to identify

> the offenders of the few regulations that existed.

> Consequently, The Motor Car Act 1903 introduced measures to help identify vehicles and their

> drivers. All motor vehicles were to be registered, and to display registration marks in a prominent

> position.

>

> Extract from the DVLA website:

That just seems to back my argument - that cyclists are rapidly increasing in number and bring increased dangers. Plus it's difficult to identify the offenders of regulations. Ergo, visible registration is a good thing. Erm... thanks.

> Cyclists pose no such danger and there is consequently no need to introduce the same

> regulation as is necessary in relation to motorised vehicles, which are huge pieces of

> metal, lethally propelled at great speed and causing a large number of fatalities a year.

No one is arguing that they are less dangerous than cars, but unless they pose little no no danger (which I doubt even you would argue) then bringing them into line is entirely sensible. Especially as it becomes more and more popular.

> Cycling poses much the same risk to others as a number of other common activities, none of which

> require the participants to register on some database and carry prominently displayed identifying numbers.

How many of these involve the road? An environment where the vast majority are already visibly registered.

> Equating cycling with driving, just because they share the road, is nonsensical for all of the many

> and detailed reasons above written by me and other posters.

What? Because they are 'less dangerous'. Sorry, but that is the whataboutery distraction argument again. You've yet to actually argue why it would be a bad thing, just that you don't want it.

> But you have failed to engage with the arguments put forward, instead repeating your prejudiced and

> illogical viewpoint as if repetition gives it more weight.

I could describe your approach in much the same way - prejudiced and illogical . All you have done is say, "ooh, look - there is something ever worse over there!!". I've put forward solid arguments why it would be a good thing - you've yet to really argue why it would be a bad thing.

> If you can't see why compulsory registration and insurance is a bad idea by now, then there seems

> to be little point in attempting to explain any further.

I don't think you have actually explained why it would be a bad thing, only that you don't think it's necessary. Which is an entirely different argument.

[Applespider]

While you haven't yet explained how you see the logistics of it working cost-effectively or not...

Anyhow... can we take the cyclist registration chat elsewhere and get back to the topic of how to normalise cycling in ED? The registration idea is so de-normalising that I think it probably should be split off and leave this thread to more positivity.

[the-e-dealer]

.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It's in everyone's interests that cycling in London be encouraged. If you make people take a test, apply for a licence and pay insurance, the number of people cycling will plummet. You're likely to see an increase in cars, pollution, congestion, injuries, health problems, etc. what do you get in return? It's easier to trace the few hundred cyclists involved in collisions with pedestrians each year (not that there are that many 'hit and run' cycle accidents). Or is it that its easier to fine cyclist for jumping lights etc? I suspect that what's really behind the vitriol that some direct towards cyclists is the sense that they're 'getting away with it'. Those motorists who are the most venomous are probably the same people who (if they could) would break the rules themselves. You are latent Lycra louts!

[northlondoner]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's in everyone's interests that cycling in

> London be encouraged. If you make people take a

> test, apply for a licence and pay insurance, the

> number of people cycling will plummet. You're

> likely to see an increase in cars, pollution,

> congestion, injuries, health problems, etc. what

> do you get in return? It's easier to trace the few

> hundred cyclists involved in collisions with

> pedestrians each year (not that there are that

> many 'hit and run' cycle accidents). Or is it that

> its easier to fine cyclist for jumping lights etc?

> I suspect that what's really behind the vitriol

> that some direct towards cyclists is the sense

> that they're 'getting away with it'. Those

> motorists who are the most venomous are probably

> the same people who (if they could) would break

> the rules themselves. You are latent Lycra louts!

Oh dear . The logic of this is hard to follow. As hard to follow as the movements of a cyclist weaving in and out of traffic , one could say.

[catfood]

it is not illegal to 'weave' in and out of traffic, it's called filtering.

cyclists ARE traffic.

[James Barber]

That is terrible uncleglen.

But more people are injured by a factor or two by motor vehicles mounting pavements than by cyclists riding on the pavements. But that's not much consilation if you've been so unlucky to be struck by a reckless cyclist.