Should cyclists have the same speed restrictions as motor vehicles?

[Earl Aelfheah]

4 minutes ago, first mate said:

Prior to the significant influx of e-bikes you may have had a point. E-bikes muddy the waters and it is not always clear when an e-bike is souped up or not. Having the same speed limit for all road users would make things clearer, simpler and in the long term probably safer too. See no reason why e-bikes cannot be licensed. 

E-bikes are regulated already. Those with throttles are classed as motorbikes and must be licenced. There are too many illegal, unlicensed electric motorbikes on the roads for sure. But this is a different issue to pedal bikes being classed and / or treated as motor vehicles (which they are not).

[exdulwicher]

1 minute ago, first mate said:

 See no reason why e-bikes cannot be licensed. 

Because an e-bike (and by this I mean the correct use of the term in law, the legal Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle (EAPC) with a motor that only works when pedalling, that provides <250W average power and that cuts out at 15.5mph / 25kph) is regarded in law as identical to a bicycle. So that includes Lime bikes, the e-cargo bikes you see kids being carried on etc. 

What it does not include is stuff like electric motorcycles, bikes that have been modified with the addition of a motor and throttle, bikes that can be powered to more than 25kph etc which are - in law - not "e-bikes" at all, they're electric mopeds, electric motorcycles or adapted cycles. They already need licencing. You can ride an electric motorbike but it needs to be registered, licenced and the driver / rider (whatever you want to call them) needs a driving licence and insurance. If they don't have that, it's already illegal and the powers already exist to deal with that, it's just it's very rarely enforced. I wish it was enforced! Problem is that if it was, there'd be an awful lot of people complaining to Deliveroo that their food hadn't turned up...

Part of the problem is that literally anything on 2 wheels with a motor is referred to as an e-bike, often wrongly. It's a bit like calling every vehicle on the road a bus.

[Spartacus]

10 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Even if it led to an decrease in the number of cyclists, an increase in all cause mortality, pollution and road injuries?

Beautiful speculation Earl 

Why would licencing cause an decrease ? 

If anything it might increase numbers as more nervous cyclists feel safer knowing the aggressive/bad cyclists can be identified, caught and controlled from cycling badly. 

Could be a win win for all, but I now wait your response saying cyclists are special cases and shouldn't be regulated. 

 

Edited January 14 by Spartacus

[Earl Aelfheah]

5 minutes ago, Moovart said:

Another thing is that we know where the motor vehicles are (most of the time) so most of us know what to do to avoid them.  But the unexpectedness of a bicycle coming at you on a pavement is what makes it hazardous and upsetting as you're just not expecting to see a vehicle at speed on the pavement.

Of course, bicycles should not be ridden on the pavement. If you're caught doing this, you will be issued with a penalty as things stand. It is an issue of enforcement, not regulation. 

And of course, you are still much more likely to be killed or seriously injured as a pedestrian even on a pavement, by a motor vehicles than a bicycle (just to inject some perspective).

1 minute ago, Spartacus said:

Why would licencing cause an decrease ? 

Where ever barriers to cycling have been introduced it has reduced the number of people cycling and increased all cause mortality.

[exdulwicher]

2 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Beautiful speculation Earl 

Why would licencing cause an decrease ? 

If anything it might increase numbers as more nervous cyclists feel safer knowing the aggressive/bad cyclists can be identofoed, caught and controlled from cycling badly. 

Could be a win win for all, but I now wait your response saying cyclists are special cases and shouldn't be regulated. 

 

Here you go:

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/33/cycling-should-require-a-licence-and-registration

No-one (other than maybe North Korea I think...?) requires cyclists to be licensed / registered. It's a total waste of time and effort to even try it and yet it pops up with monotonous regularity, often when some clueless politician desperate for a moment in the limelight comes up with this genius plan and is then shot down in flames. It's a useful "dead cat" thing though, it can often be used to hide any manner of political indiscretions because it invariably results in a week of radio phone ins and opinion column inches.

[Spartacus]

1 minute ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

 

Where ever barriers to cycling have been introduced it has reduced the number of people cycling and increased all cause mortality.

Please provide evidence that it would be the case if cyclists are licenced rather than speculate. I am guessing you won't be able to and you are just throwing speculation into the argument to support that cyclist should be above the law. 

[exdulwicher]

Just now, Spartacus said:

Please provide evidence that it would be the case if cyclists are licenced rather than speculate. I am guessing you won't be able to and you are just throwing speculation into the argument to support that cyclist should be above the law. 

See my link above. 

And cyclist are not "above the law". I mean, pedestrians aren't registered and licenced yet a pedestrian can still be stopped and questioned by police if they suspect that person of being guilty of a crime. I've seen the police up in town pull cyclists over for running red lights. They were able to do that in spite of the cyclist not having a number plate.

I saw the police stop two burglars once too, in spite of them having done everything possible to hide their identity! Incredible stuff really.

[snowy]

4 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Beautiful speculation Earl 

Why would licencing cause an decrease ? 

If anything it might increase numbers as more nervous cyclists feel safer knowing the aggressive/bad cyclists can be identified, caught and controlled from cycling badly. 

Could be a win win for all, but I now wait your response saying cyclists are special cases and shouldn't be regulated. 

 

Please name a country that has licensing for cyclists. There's what, 194 countries in the world. That means 194 sets of researchers, policy and law makers, health experts and economists.

Only 1 country has it. But the EDF is clearly tired of experts and knows better...

[Earl Aelfheah]

8 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The discussion feels like classic culture war nonsense; A really obvious form of deflection that loudly points the finger / vilifies a minority of relatively vulnerable road users, to stop any serious examination of the where the real danger is.

...and here we go again. Let's not talk about the thousands of casualties last year in Southwark who were involved in collisions involving motor vehicles.

12 minutes ago, snowy said:

Please name a country that has licensing for cyclists. There's what, 194 countries in the world. That means 194 sets of researchers, policy and law makers, health experts and economists.

Only 1 country has it. But the EDF is clearly tired of experts and knows better...

Norway and Japan, plus quite a few US state have introduced it. Obviously stupid and does anyone believe it wouldn't lead to a drop in the number of people cycling? Really?

This pretty much sums up my view on it https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/mar/18/should-cyclists-be-licensed-and-insured-robert-winston 

Edited January 14 by Earl Aelfheah

[snowy]

Japan is a theft management tool - it registers the bike not the rider.

[Earl Aelfheah]

...BTW, would people also restrict the age of those allowed to cycle to match cars?

Edited January 14 by Earl Aelfheah

[snowy]

9 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

...and here we go again. Let's not talk about the thousands of casualties last year in Southwark who were involved in collisions involving motor vehicles.

Norway and Japan, plus quite a few US state have introduced it. Always leads to drops in the number of people cycling, which is hardly surprising is it. There are others I'm sure. 

This pretty much sums up my view on it https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/mar/18/should-cyclists-be-licensed-and-insured-robert-winston 

Australia and their compulsory helmet law had similar effect but now I've opened that pandora's box. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Do anyone really believe that a bicycle poses an equivalent risk to others as a car? Anyone? So why would you treat them as equivalent? Do you think that licencing bicycles and treating them as if they are cars, is the most important thing we could do to reduce the thousands of deaths and serious injuries on our streets each year? Is it in the top 10 even?

1 minute ago, snowy said:

Australia and their compulsory helmet law had similar effect but now I've opened that pandora's box. 

I nearly mentioned it and then decided not to 🤣

[Rockets]

56 minutes ago, Moovart said:

It's not a big fat zero....my neighbour couldn't work for a year following injuries from being knocked down by a bike riding at speed on the pavement....broken bones etc.  And no insurance company to make a claim against for loss of earnings.  The cyclist didn't stop.  So not zero, just saying.

I think this is what Earl would refer to as a "minor issue".

And the problem with e-bikes is that anyone can go out and buy a kit that takes a bike way above 250W (some are advertised as being able to do 60mph for "off-road") - police are trying to clamp down as it is a growing problem but these bikes pose both a threat to pedestrians and the riders themselves.

[Spartacus]

23 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Do anyone really believe that a bicycle poses an equivalent risk to others as a car? Anyone? So why would you treat them as equivalent? Do you think that licencing bicycles and treating them as if they are cars, is the most important thing we could do to reduce the thousands of deaths and serious injuries on our streets each year? Is it in the top 10 even?

It's not about risk, but controlling anti social behaviour 

Currently, and I use the phrase lightly, the "lycra louts" believe they are above the law and can jump lights, cycle on pavements and ride as fast as they can. 

Licencing and some form of identifying mark will give authorities powers to prosecute anti social cyclist behaviour thus making it better for all road users and pedestrians, but of course yet again you throw the whatabout cars into the argument.

Let's face it a large propotlrtion of British cyclists are seen as a special breed of arrogant and it makes it dangerous for other road users  and pedestrians so maybe we need to buck the trend and licence them.

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

Licencing and some form of identifying mark will give authorities powers to prosecute anti social cyclist behaviour thus making it better for all road users and pedestrians

Authorities already have powers to issue fines and on extreme cases do prosecute those cycling dangerously. I am questioning your second point though. Would forcing bikes to have a number plate / ‘identifying mark’ make people safer? I believe it would be hugely expensive and complicated to administer and I doubt very much that it would improve safety. It could very well reduce safety if it led to fewer people cycling, as well as having other negative societal impacts on health and the environment. It’s not whataboutery to question whether the opportunity cost is way too high. Why prioritise this measure over many others which would do much more to achieve your stated aim?

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

I think this is what Earl would refer to as a "minor issue".

I have never minimised a real world collision, unlike yourself, arguing over how many car crashes were too many on a previous thread.

Edited January 14 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This still ignores basic physics. A bicycle travelling at 10 mph doesn't remotely pose the same threat as a motor vehicle travelling at the same speed. And without licencing, there is no way I can see of enforcing speed limits.

But my biggest objection (as with these threads generally) is that it's displacement activity. It's focussing on a minor issue, whilst ignoring the really serious issue of people killed and seriously injured on our streets and the increasing incidence of hit and runs.

Leaving this here with no comment....

[ab29]

"You are a dispicable individual" - guessing this supposed to be "despicable".

@Administrator not sure how comment like this helps any conversation

13 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Authorities already have powers to issue fines and on extreme cases do prosecute those cycling dangerously. I am questioning your second point though. Would forcing bikes to have a number plate / ‘identifying mark’ make people safer? I believe it would be hugely expensive and complicated to administer and I doubt very much that it would improve safety. It could very well reduce safety if it led to fewer people cycling, as well as having other negative societal impacts on health and the environment. It’s not whataboutery to question whether the opportunity cost is way too high. Why prioritise this measure over many others which would do much more to achieve your stated aim?

You are a dispicable individual. I have never minimised actual collisions unlike yourself, arguing over how many car crashes were too many on a previous thread.

[Earl Aelfheah]

You spent pages minimising crash data for the local area because it involves motor vehicles. l have never once said that an actual collision was not serious (whatever the vehicle involved). What I have said is that bicycles and motor vehicles do not pose the same risk. Which is a matter of fact. I do not want to see people behaving in ways that endanger others. 
You are not interested in a good faith discussion. It’s shameful.

37 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Leaving this here with no comment....

Classic. No comment because it doesn’t say what you are insinuating. I have never minimised a real life collision. You downplayed hundreds reflected in local crash data.

Edited January 14 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

40 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Authorities already have powers to issue fines and on extreme cases do prosecute those cycling dangerously. I am questioning your second point though. Would forcing bikes to have a number plate / ‘identifying mark’ make people safer? I believe it would be hugely expensive and complicated to administer and I doubt very much that it would improve safety. It could very well reduce safety if it led to fewer people cycling, as well as having other negative societal impacts on health and the environment. It’s not whataboutery to question whether the opportunity cost is way too high. Why prioritise this measure over many others which would do much more to achieve your stated aim?

 

Yes, authorities do have the rights to stop and fine cyclists, but the big issue there is how do they enforce it. 

Wardens or police at every crossing? Impractical and costly, stopping cyclists when they see it, short of being able to catch them and talk to them it's almost impossible. 

Cameras, like the ones used for motor vehicles, only practical if cyclists can be identified so that means licencing and registration plates. 

Cost wise, like all schemes, it will pay for itself in registration fees and penalties.  But yet again you want to push the narrative that cyclists should be above the law and it's not worth regulating them. 

[exdulwicher]

17 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You are not interested in a good faith discussion. It’s shameful.

It;s interesting from a wider perspective though. Calling for cycle licencing / registration plates etc for example. That idea is insane. It's been shown, time and time again to be insane. No other country does it. I posted a link with various reasons why which I'll put here again:

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/33/cycling-should-require-a-licence-and-registration

There are numerous other articles about it, it's been raised repeatedly by various politicians and Governments of both colours have repeatedly explained why it won't happen:

https://www.cycleassociation.uk/news/?id=3742

So the "argument" (such as it is) is bonkers on many many levels. But, in spite of being faced with all manner of evidence as to why it's bonkers, it's been repeated numerous times.

It's a classic argument against all these requests for more data, more info, more research, we want the raw data, we want more consultation... The cycle registration thing is pretty straightforward, there is no logical case for it whatsoever. There's no nuance in it, no "well, some of it might be a good idea..." It's flat out wrong. At this stage, the only way anyone advancing a case for cycle registration could be more wrong is to go off and start a thread claiming the Earth is flat.

No amount of data and info will ever appease this sort of person. So actually, yes, the simple answer is to say "you are not interested in any form of good faith discussion, you're ignoring every piece of evidence placed in front of you".

That's not a personal insult. It's a simple statement of fact.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

I do need to correct an earlier mistake. I misremembered research I’d read on the impact of introducing mandatory helmet laws, with mandatory registration. Should have checked that first. I believe the same outcome is very likely however; a disincentive to cycle. Meaning fewer people exercising (with associated reductions in all cause mortality), and a decrease in the safety that comes with numbers.

46 minutes ago, ab29 said:

"You are a dispicable individual" - guessing this supposed to be "despicable".

@Administrator not sure how comment like this helps any conversation

I have deleted the personal comment. People can see that I was not commenting on Moovarts neighbour.

Edited January 14 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You spent pages minimising crash data for the local area because it involves motor vehicles.

No I didn't. I merely challenged you on your assertion that these accidents were frequent (or whatever term you used) - that's not me minimising crash data but challenging you on your maximising of it.

39 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I have deleted the personal comment.

Thank you - that was completely uncalled for and clearly against forum rules - but I may change my user name to Despicable Individual as a result...or at least get a T-Shirt made...;-)

39 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

Calling for cycle licencing / registration plates etc for example. That idea is insane. It's been shown, time and time again to be insane. No other country does it.

And I agree that it's impossible to do - but then, how do we manage the challenge of bad and dangerous cycling? More police doing stops like they do in the City?

[exdulwicher]

5 minutes ago, Rockets said:

And I agree that it's impossible to do - but then, how do we manage the challenge of bad and dangerous cycling? More police doing stops like they do in the City?

Yes!

Same as the police deal with the million or so unlicenced / uninsured / untaxed drivers. Same way the police catch dangerous vehicles, burglars, shoplifters... 

I'd absolutely be up for any increase in policing. If it means a few cyclists are caught, have their illegal e-bikes / e-scooters confiscated and crushed, go for it. As an added bonus, while they're out and about, they could maybe deal with some of the countless mobile phone / speeding / drink driving offences. Maybe they'd catch a shoplifter running out of M&S as well.

More policing is 100% OK by me. 

If some scrote on a private e-scooter is rugby-tackled to the ground and has their scooter taken away, I'd be there cheering.

[snowy]

3 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

Yes!

Same as the police deal with the million or so unlicenced / uninsured / untaxed drivers. Same way the police catch dangerous vehicles, burglars, shoplifters... 

I'd absolutely be up for any increase in policing. If it means a few cyclists are caught, have their illegal e-bikes / e-scooters confiscated and crushed, go for it. As an added bonus, while they're out and about, they could maybe deal with some of the countless mobile phone / speeding / drink driving offences. Maybe they'd catch a shoplifter running out of M&S as well.

More policing is 100% OK by me. 

If some scrote on a private e-scooter is rugby-tackled to the ground and has their scooter taken away, I'd be there cheering.

It's interesting that it's cyclists they want identified, whereas for drivers its only the cars...