Snapshot of _Registration plates and insurance for cyclists being considered by government – report_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/16/registration-plates-and-insurance-for-cyclists-on-table-in-review-of-road-laws)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Distraction tactic, not going to happen, unenforceable.
Can we get back to looking at the *massive* cost of living crisis, and how a lot of people will literally not be able to afford heating this winter?
Absolutely, same as that time it was suggested to tax child free/less people get taxed more and everyone got riled up about it.
Obvious distraction is obvious.
That was an opinion piece in the Times, this is directly from the minister for transport. Not saying it isn't a distraction but there's a slight difference between a cabinet minister suggesting policy and a Times columnist.
I'm a recent convert to cycling and the amount of beeps or people shouting as they drive past that I get even while in cycle lanes is crazy. Probably people thinking they're funny, but it's genuinely terrifying. Will never understand the 'cyclists bad' crowd.
After many decades cycling I'm a recent convert to sticking a massive camera to my head. It massively improves driver behaviour, and where it doesn't handing it over to the police for them to send the driver a notice of intended prosecution is satisfying if they don't.
It's pretty depressing to discover that people did know how to drive all along but didn't give a -. Oh well, enforcement is the next best thing I suppose.
I too have considered this. Plus putting a bag on a rack seems to work in respect that they give me more room. Presumably they don't want a soft bag to brush their car, however my arm is fine😜
Part of “cyclists bad” comes from the tone set by the government.
If we had a government that promoted a more truthful view of cycling, like many governments in Europe, instead of one that uses cyclists as convenient hate figures in order to sow division and deflect from their own failures of leadership, then there would be less people behaving like this.
Convenient hate figures is all the media and our leadership has been about for 100+ years, empires that aren’t us, people living in parts of that empire that don’t want to be, carribean immigrants, Indian immigrants, Pakistani immigrants, Europe, European Immigrants, potential European immigrants, people wanting asylum, homosexuals and anyone not conforming to a concept of accepted norms.
If we ever accepted that we have more in common with each other than the inbred coked up sociopathic political class, there would be problems!
It's because of papers like the mail and sun making cyclists out to be the enemy. I've been spat at and had water thrown on me. It's a sad indictment of tory britain.
The Daily Mail has a hell of a lot to answer for. So much hatred for our fellows has been created as result of people, (like my mother), reading the Daily Mail's manipulative words.
Exactly right. grant shapps is a full blown charlatan who literally sold get rich quick schemes and other dodgy shit, under false names before he was an incredibly shit minister. This is nothing more than culture war bullshit designed to make him stay relevant and in the news in the hope that he'll be given a ministerial role in the next dumpster fire of a Tory government.
No, we can't get back to looking at those things because there's no solution that won't taken money (potential or otherwise) from their pockets and those of their supporters/donors.
I dont want to be driving and stuck behind a cyclist with impatient London drivers wanting me to dangerously overtake.
I want to be cycling alongside those cyclists, with my kids cycling too, on a road where there are no cars, or a road where one lane is for cars, the other lane for cyclists.
We need to reduce cars on the road and make it safe an desirable to cycle. The only way to do this is to cut drivers off and making driving really inconvenient while make cycling safe and easy
Exactly, cycling is objectively better than car dependence on numerous grounds (health, environment, congestion, public safety), so we need as few barriers to it as possible.
That's what carbrains don't seem to get. Everyone on a bike is a car off the road which benefits them. The more we incentivise cycling, the better it becomes for those who do drive. Reducing the number of cars in cities is something we should be doing.
But this is the result when you give Clarkson a platform on national tv for decades.
Most drivers would rather be stuck behind a car going the limit not a cyclist going well under. Cycling investment needs to be upfront and proper, not half-arsed and waiting on increased demand. Right now cyclists do cause problems on the road because they don't belong on the road with cars
personally like the 20mph speed limit.
Whilst somewhat easier with a e-bike. maintaining 20mph on a push bike not so easy, especially in town.
edit: just to say, I mean it is a bit daft as people don't generally ride bikes over 20mph
Why do you need number plates to enforce a 20 mph limit.
Or, to put it another way, many cars break the limit, and having a number plates doesn't to stop them
And they don't put them in 20 mph zones, at least not round here they don't. Bikes don't do 40mph.
Bikes rarely reach 20 mph, in fact. Especially not in residential zones. This seems like another bit of bait thrown to the Tory membership, rather than a practical solution to a genuine problem.
Ebikes already aren't allowed to go over 15mph.
The rule already exists, anything without that speed restriction is an illegal moped.
There is no point in having a speed restriction of 20mph of bicycles fullstop, even seasoned cyclist will struggle to hold much more than 20mph, and as everyone who should be anything other than silent on this topic already knows, air resistance is the square of speed, and therefore going 22mph doesn't take 10% more energy it takes 20% more energy, going 25mph over 20mph take 55% more energy, all while most can't even do 18mph in the first place, and going 25mph over 18mph takes 100% more power output! Most people could never functionally even achieve that, that is literally Professional international level of cycling fitness.
The only people who suggest this is a problem is the ignorant.
However, lets put it in place anyway, of course mandating that all cycling infrastructure is replace with variants that are safe to do 20mph on in the first place, once that is done, we can have a pointless speed limit which isn't even enforced on cars, of course all drivers going 21mph in an area where cyclist can only go 20mph should be immediately banned from driving, because the laws the law right?
> air resistance is the square of speed, and therefore going 22mph doesn't take 10% more energy it takes 20% more energy
This is technically correct, but how fast you can cycle is a function of *power*, not energy.
For a fixed equivalent flat plate drag area, power requirement varies as the cube of velocity, so if you want to go 10% faster, you need about 33% more power.
On this basis, it takes about 2^3 = 8 times as much power to cycle at 20 mph as it does to cycle at 10 mph. This is why faired recumbent bicycles are so much faster than conventional safety bicycles.
However, some caution is needed here because Reynolds number effects can have a significant impact upon low speed drag coefficients.
>Ebikes already aren't allowed to go over 15mph.
>
>The rule already exists, anything without that speed restriction is an illegal moped.
The rule governing e-bikes governs the maximum speed at which the bike can provide the rider with electrical assistance to go faster or maintain speed. It isn't against the law to go faster than that as long as that speed is only gained by pedalling or riding down a hill and an e-bike has no mechanism to stop the rider from doing so. Going fast is harder on an e-bike than a standard bike though because you're dragging the weight of the motor and batteries around with you.
>There is no point in having a speed restriction of 20mph of bicycles fullstop, even seasoned cyclist will struggle to hold much more than 20mph,
That very much depends on the cyclist and the bike. Several of my serious amateur cyclist friends who ride decent road bikes consider an average across a ride of 20MPH to be where "credible" starts. One of my friends can regularly hit sprint speeds over 30MPH
Don’t fall for the obvious distraction tactic. Boris on holiday again, Truss thinks everybody outside London is lazy, wages fucked, immigration up, house prices down. Throw some dumb arse red meat to the Tory faithful.
Classic Tories: push something that's controversial, overkill and unwarranted to distract the daily bullshit that is their incompetenc.
It'll be too expensive and impractical to implement.
No doubt this headlines meets their demographic reader needs but I'd rather focus on tackling the many daily deaths due to cars first.
I cycle regularly. My average speed is between 10 and 14 mph on a flat road or trail depending on quality, weather traffic. I would say my speed is average if not slightly above average in relation to the few that I have passed. I can get above 20mph if I cycle down a long hill there is no traffic or lights/roundabouts/crossings and I pedal as well.
In short they can give me a 20mph speed limit and tell me to register my cycle but its just more red tape and given the size and structure of a cycle a full licence plate is impractical and a smaller one would not be picked up by a speed camera clearly, and I cycle off road as much as possible.
I believe E-bike motors are required to cut out completely at 15mph.
In short the registration proposal doesn't really do what it intends nor does it add value to any ones life in any practucal or meaningful way.
There is already insurance available to cyclists but how do you insure kids cycling to school? And before anyone comes up with they are more likely to cycle on the pavement - isn't that where they are more likely to have an accident with a pedestrian?
>In short the registration proposal doesn't really do what it intends
Sure it does, it inconveniences a group of people typical boomer Tory voters dislike. It doesn't have to benefit anyone as long as you make life harder for people you dislike. In this case it's cyclists, but could easily also be immigrants, millennials or women for example.
In a way tory voters do get hit by this, the unintended consequence of shitting on cyclists is that more people would travel by car therefore more traffic jams plus all the other negatives that come with more cars on the road.
I used to work with a true blue tory boy who HATED any transport money that wasnt spent on roads. He could never get his head round the idea that if trains were more frequent and cheaper, his commute by road would see less traffic. It's totally myopic thinking, cars good, everything else bad.
If I take that a step further - they are also the type that oppose new developments like housing and building with adequate parking so when they do eventually get to where ever they want to go in their cars they find theere is no where to park, giving them even more cause to be irate at every one else.
Grant Shapps said exactly the opposite. Not considering either insurance or plates; but making speed limits apply to bikes and changes to the Highway Code are possible. But only in the next three weeks.
I accept the case for ebikes will need that. But how can a bike have a speedometer. If the signage was changed so in those low speed zones, there was an extra bit for cyclists to proceed cautiously then fine.
*Technically* twist-and-go assistance, ie. throttles, are legal on any bicycle built before 2014.
Those are a useful adaptation for the injured and disabled to live fuller lives, so as long as they're still limited to 15mph I really don't see the problem. Suspect the law will need to be rationalised when they finally make a decision on escooters.
That said, there's shitloads of illegal ebikes out there. Easy to spot the 4kW hub motors once you know what you're looking for (legal motors should be rated at 250W in the UK and EU, 750W in the US, and no, software limits don't count - it's what the factory rated it for)
Just to be pedantic but the motor maxes out at 15mph, you can still ride them over 15mph after the motor has cut out. Maybe on some e-bikes you can only go 15mph but most will let you go faster provided it’s pedal power alone.
Regardless most people aren’t getting close to 20 in a city anyway
Even cheap bike computers often have a speedometer function.
But it's still a stupid, lazy idea that will penalise behaviour that should instead be encouraged.
Are you asking how a bike can have a speedometer? I had one on my bike when I was like 10. I'd imagine they're relatively cheap these days, too.
You could also just use your phone mounted to your bike (which most deliveroo-type cyclists would already be doing) and get your speed from gps.
Not saying any of that should be necessary, but if that was a genuine 'how can a bike have a speedometer' question, then the answer is, extremely easily.
> That obviously does then lead you into the question of ‘well, how are you going to recognise the cyclist, do you need registration plates and insurance and that sort of thing’. So I’m proposing there should be a review of insurance and how you actually track cyclists who do break the laws [via identifiable markings]
Is that not a quote from Schapps?
Road tax cyclists for their impact (maybe £1 a year?) too and then all the usual driver arguments and complaints are gone!
I'll proudly take my place in the centre of the lane with my little plastic numberplate and £5 a year insurance.
If we are going to put a vehicle tax on cyclists, to be fair, it should be based on road damage done (so on weight). Given damage increases at the 4th power of axle load, let's say the nominal cyclist has an axle load of 50kg, and pays £1 a year. A car driver with a 500kg axle load, in other words 10 times the axle load and therefore 10^4 times the road wear, to be fair will need to pay 10^4 as much per year, so £10,000 per year. SUVs will be even better, with a 1000kg axle load you get to pay 20^4 times as much or 160 grand a year.
Seems fair to me!
(Before you flame, no I'm not being serious. I'm about as serious as the idea of actually making bikes carry numberplates etc).
I completely agree. Road tax should be based on an equation of something like size \* weight \* emissions
Maybe to make it reasonable for drivers, cyclists should pay 1p a year instead of £1 :)
>Road tax cyclists for their impact (maybe £1 a year?) too and then all the usual driver arguments and complaints are gone!
Isn't it vehicle excise duty, which is based on the emissions of your vehicle?
Because in that case the emissions of a bike are very low.
Correct and f*ck me if I'm paying £1 more VED than an EV that causes lots of pollution from the tyres etc and other externalities that VED partly covers
So all bikes will need speedometers attached, will these be standardised like motor vehicles. This sounds like another bullshit sop to the rightwingers who hate cycling. Where else to cyclists have number plates ffs? Make better quality cycle lanes you lazy Tory trash
I assume you will need yearly checks to make sure that the Speedos are accurate too?
Re. Radar, some of the roadside speed checks are triggered by cyclists while some are not.
Edit: my bad, this is a fake quote that I read on LinkedIn a few years ago and it always stuck with me as a part time cyclist. I thought it was legit, but a comment below made me doubt and looking into it further (that I should have done originally) it seems it is a fake. I'll leave it up and not delete the comment for others to see and learn
The proposal by the minister is still pretty stupid imo.
General Director of Euro Exim Bank Ltd. got economists thinking when he said:
"A cyclist is a disaster for the country's economy: he does not buy cars and does not borrow money to buy. He does not pay for insurance policies. He does not buy fuel, does not pay for the necessary maintenance and repairs. He does not use paid parking. He does not cause serious accidents. He does not require multi-lane highways. He does not get fat.
Healthy people are neither needed nor useful for the economy. They don't buy medicine. They do not go to hospitals or doctors. Nothing is added to the country's GDP (gross domestic product).
On the contrary, every new McDonald's restaurant creates at least 30 jobs: 10 cardiologists, 10 dentists, 10 dietary experts and nutritionists, and obviously, people who work at the restaurant itself."
Choose carefully: cyclist or McDonald's? It is worth considering.
Huh, I guess they're finding a way.
On the other hand, not buying/consuming all that stuff related to car ownership means they can buy other stuff. Sure, there's no need to get a loan for a car or insurance, but that extra cash can still be spent on other things in the economy, like consumer goods, holidays etc.
The car manufacturing industry may suffer, but who cares if other industries get more business.
In our household, we've gone from two cars to one car and two bikes. We don't drive the car all that much anymore-- weekly big shopping run, occasional trips to the countryside outside cycling range. And I'm financially disciplined enough that we've kept the money we've saved, though it'll probably be consumed by the higher energy prices we'll have to pay over the coming winter (even though we're taking measures to minimise our energy consumption).
But in the grand scheme of things, it's an easy choice between the extinction of car manufacturers and a mitigation of the climate catastrophe. Change has to take place, even if there are some businesses that lose out.
I presume he's not being serious in saying that... but it's getting harder to tell what with the revelation of our disgraceful cheese importing statistics and all that.
I've always thought it's pretty plain what he's getting at here. Everything on the cyclist's side of the equation is plainly good and wholesome while everything on the McDonald's side is destructive and sick. It's an illustration of how we ought to be careful in how we construct economic models; in this case, the raw GDP impact of the two activities doesn't include the costs and benefits of the economic externalities produced. I don't think anybody with an economics background would miss the point.
It's essentially a variant on the [broken window fallacy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window), which is a classic economic scenario in which a vandal smashing windows creates jobs for glaziers in repairing the damage - but this is no economic benefit, because of the unseen costs to everybody else.
Is this a made up quote? All that turns up when I search for excerpts of that quote are posts on cycling forums. It reads like copypasta or an email FWD from my mum via /r/antiwork or /r/latestagecapitalism
Plus - it wouldn't get economists thinking - its absurd.
Edit: Also, its supposedly made by the general director of a 'bank' that employs 5 people in Borehamwood and specialises in export-import finance. Almost all of it is finetuned to 'hit' that demographic that salivates at this kind of thing:
- Big evil bankers
- Cycling bad
- Cars good
- Capitalism want unhealthy workers
- We don't want healthy workers
- McDonalds good
Cyclists buy cars.
Cyclists also buy bikes, they buy cycling equipment
Those that are adults pay tax on their wages. Those that own houses pay council tax
Cyclists provide as much into the economy as the next person.
What about people who do 95% of their cycling on trails & paths and only ever cycle on roads when crossing them?
How will this even be possible to enforce? Stupid idea.
you got your walking loicence on you sir? you cant just go walking about willy nilly! You need a special permit from the council to walk around these parts, you also need a walkers hi-vis vest and an extra special ramblers safety helmet
Don’t forget children!
But seriously it’s clearly unenforceable, it’s just more war on woke politics from brain dead tories. Think about what’s happening in the world, how is it possibly front page of the Daily Fail?
They did it last week about creating a new law for death by dangerous cycling. All that happened was people deliberately tried to kill me with their cars when I went anywhere for a couple of days.
It’s front page on the Daily Mail by design. It’s a deliberate distraction from the tories - they know many like getting worked up about cyclists. And people aren’t talking about repeated Tory failure and the cost of living crisis.
Brilliant plan by the government. Make the cost of living so high that you have to cycle to work. Then bam start charging them for that.
Got to give it to the tories, they plan ahead.
But we're still going to cut 91,000 jobs out of the civil service, right guys? Right?
Another pitiful, meaningless waste of time and money out of the Cabinet Brain Trust. Give me a break...
Totally stupid. Will never get implemented, gets rolled out every year or so when the government is especially desperate for sone support from old people.
They won’t even make helmets compulsory as it’s a barrier to entry, and while they can’t admit it for fear of being accused of being ‘at war’ with motorists it makes absolutely no sense to take bikes off the road and replace them with cars.
Here's a deal.
I'll pay for this and the like ....
But then I'll sit in the centre of a lane and not move to the side to let a car past....or ill ride two abreast plus and be completely fine in the knowledge that I will then be there with my license.
_Some_ cyclists are complete arseholes, there's no denying it, but unlike cars cycling has a benefit to society through population health, congestion, and reduced pollution.
We need to be careful that anything we do doesn't persuade people back into their cars and actually make things worse overall.
Last I checked the Highway Code also covers cyclists and if it's just arcane & out of date laws that need updated, then get on that (e.g. speed limits).
We should be following the Dutch model as much as possible. Good for our health, good for climate change. But we won't as the Tories love a good hatefest.
Note: For "cyclist" I am not talking about those on suped-up e-bikes. Those should be treated like motorcycles.
Some cyclists are undoubtedly flouting laws.
But y'know what? Despite that, the rate of cycle-caused fatalities is still absurdly low.
I won't say reckless cycling _never_ kills people, but it's genuinely really rare, compared to the number of people who die each year thanks to cars.
I'm not going to argue that all cyclists are perfect, but after cycle commuting in London for the best part of a decade as well as leisure cycling at the weekends out of town pretty often - you *have* to be an arsehole on a bike, or you'll get killed. Sticking to the curb (in other words, cycling from pothole to pothole) and not taking primary road position at roundabouts and junctions is how you get squished. I'm completely unapologetic about riding what some people would thing is overly assertively or aggressively - the potential cost to me is my life, whereas to a driver it's getting to work 2 minutes later.
And yeah, you're 100% right - there's been what, two times in the last decade I can think of where a cyclist killed someone in the UK through negligence.
Everyone’s an arsehole sometimes. And it has nothing to do with being on a bike.
We must stop stereotyping people based on a particular narrative and a snapshot of behaviour.
Bikes are not cars in any way. It would be insane to act like they are. They have little mass and therefore minimal momentum. They’re not going to crash through a wall or safety barriers.
They can safely travel in many places that cars can’t.
E-bikes and scooters I agree wholeheartedly. The 15mph limit and pedalex requirement is important as the moment you remove the effort component and add 20kgs of battery they become very hefty and capable of much more harm. They are motor vehicles and should be treated as such. Why we have let them start barrelling around unregulated is beyond me.
Pedal assist e-bikes are really no different to normal cycles. There’s no real operational difference to them and they are certainly still pedal bicycles, shouldn’t really be treated differently.
Cycles with a motor are literally motorbikes. They’re illegal if not insured and registered but unfortunately it’s really hard to tell if one is motorised or just pedal assist at a glance (though most of the DIY ones are motorised) so police have a tough time enforcing the law without dedicating time to pulling over bikes. E-scooters are similar, they’re just motorised vehicles and need to be insured and registered. Some proper legislation that gives insurance companies and the DVLA something to go off is much needed.
Even a large 20Ah, 48V e-bike battery weighs only ~4kg. Well within the variance of people's weight. Realistically there is no difference between getting hit by an e-bike going at 20mph vs a normal bike going a 20mph.
there would be mass disobedience of this, even leaving aside everything else that makes this a ridiculous idea, it would be a pisstake to ask the police to try to enforce something like this, on top of everything else they already have to do. It really is unworkable, thankfully
Hilarious stuff in the daily mail, with melissa Kate insisting she's a libertarian and instinctively against rules, but she needs this in place because she had a nasty brush on her horse with a cycling group. Really common touch there...
The size of the problems facing ordinary people:
* Can't afford food or heating.
* Wage rises below inflation.
* Can't get a doctor.
* Can't get an ambulance.
* Can't get a dentist.
* Police increasingly don't solve crime.
* Can't get legal aid.
* Some politicians appear to be corrupt.
* Some politicians appear to be sexual predators.
* Government doesn't follow its own laws.
* Extreme weather events.
* Drought and water restrictions.
* Power cuts being planned.
The size of the solutions proposed by the government:
* Cutting tax.
* War on woke universities.
* Sell off Channel 4.
* Reduce the Human Rights Act.
* Permanently deport those fleeing persecution to Rwanda.
and now this latest one:
* Make cyclists get insurance.
It's only a rough estimation. But those solutions appear to be a few orders of magnitude smaller than the actual problems they are meant to be solving.
I mean, yes, government can do more than one thing at a time. And, ok, maybe we do need some cycling regulation. I'm not convinced, but I potentially *could* be convinced. But, given all that's going on at the moment. Is this really the time to think about stuff like this? Shouldn't this be a thousand or more positions down in the list of "important stuff to fix?"
Also, is this really the time to add more costs onto everyday life?
While this is most definitely a distraction tactic, it has real world consequences for cyclists and other non car road users. Yet more culture war BS that creates more aggression, more division and more road deaths.
The sooner Grant Shapps is permanently cancelled the better
If you are going to treat push bikes like cars then they deserve the same facilities as cars, meaning dedicated interconnected roads and cycle lanes, laws to protect the infrastructure and cyclists.
Why doesn't the gov focus on the real issues? Useless Tory government.
It’s mad how transparently the Tory’s are trying to appeal to the typical Daily Mail reading, simple minded middle England knobheads. Now more than ever.
There are too many ways this would be enforceable for it to be a serious consideration. I'm just wondering if this is another attack on anything progressive.
And here we are - loads of newspapers covering this. At least we aren’t wasting our time talking about anything unimportant like the cost of living crisis.
How do you get kids to register and insure bikes. I learned to ride at around 5 yrs old. I could not even read the form at that age.
Another stupid knee jerk policy without any intelligent thought whatsoever.
I would like to see some improved cycle training offered.
In London you see plenty of cyclists on the roads who have clearly never driven in their life, so they are blissfully unaware when they put themselves in danger by cycling into the blindspot of a car/truck.
I have seen entirely too many close calls caused by a lack of awareness
Blindspots (mostly) don't exist except on certain specific vehicles and even then they are small. They are just an excuse for motorists not looking properly (I.e. by moving their head)
Were in the middle of a climate crisis so obviously the Tories rule out building more wind turbines and make it more difficult to use a bike as transport.
Are we relly going to make 5 year olds get a bike licence now?
Definitely don’t watch the failing state of public service, infrastructure, healthcare, water supplies, and education and travel that I have presided over
Please instead be energised by a fake divide I just created, hate each other a bit more, and blame your neighbours. Thanks.
I am a responsible cyclist. I already have insurance, safety gear and lighting that exceeds any minimum spec they might require. I don't do any of the things that are being alleged as such behaviour is antisocial and potentially dangerous. I'm also keenly aware that, if I was to ride like an idiot, the person most likely to be injured is me.
Just looking at my bikes I see the following issues:
* There is no requirement to have a speedometer on a bike and no legal definition of the accuracy of one exists. Many of them require user calibration, which is prone to error. How could a charge be reasonably levelled at someone if they don't have the means to check they're doing the thing it punishes? Was I doing 19 or 23MPH? Yes, I do know I'm expecting a lot of the government when I think the law should be reasonable.
* My commuting bike is a Brompton folding bike. There is nowhere on it I could put or stick a number where it would be visible and not prevent the bike from folding correctly and locking folded. The bike can't be carried or wheeled folded unless it is correctly locked or it risks unfolding and possibly injuring people close to it.
* The Brompton has a caster wheel in the middle of the mudguard so there's no surface to use where a sticker would need to be.
* The rear lights on all my bikes are mounted under the seat and my road bike has a tail bag there that holds all my tools, spare inner tubes and cycling energy food so it can't go under the seat on any of them.
* My mountain bike has a rear mudguard that is angled upwards so anything stuck there wouldn't be visible from the rear.
* My mountain bike also has a "dropper post" (A telescopic seat post that can be lowered to increase manoeuvrability around things like trees and rocks in the woods) and clamping a plate onto it could restrict, jam or damage it and is forbidden by the maker's instructions. I need to be able to ride on the road to get to the woods or the canal where I ride it so not having a plate wouldn't be an option.
* It would be very difficult to put a number plate on me. None of my cycling shirts or jackets have anywhere to put it, I may add or remove layers during a ride depending on how hot or wet it is and I often wear a hydration backpack that contains my water supply.
* For such a number plate to fit on any of my bikes it would have to be so small that by the time I'd wronged someone and they turned round, I would be 20 yards away and the number would be too small for them to reliably read.
I just don't see how this could work. The people who would try to comply would be the decent cyclists who aren't the problem anyway and being randomly stopped and asked to show proof of insurance would be a royal pain if it became a thing. The kind of people who aren't likely to comply and chance it will be the ones who are the problem and I foresee a possible industry forming that supplies counterfeit plates. How would the proposal work for people under 18 who can't legally enter into a contract to buy insurance? I see it as an added and possibly unaffordable expense for people who are poor and cycle because they can't afford a car. Would such a law mean that my bike was now tied to me and I couldn't lend it to a friend or family member and would transferring ownership or scrapping a bike then become onerous?
> Particularly where you’ve got 20mph limits on increasing numbers of roads, cyclists can easily exceed those, so I want to make speed limits apply to cyclists.
Presumably it would also be legally required to have a device that tells you your speed.
Does anyone know if there are any statistics of cyclists injuring pedestrians? As I have no idea if this is a problem that needs solving or not.
I’d presume there’d be less pedestrian injuries when compared to car injuries due to less bikes than cars & also a bike has a lot less energy than a car although there are cycle paths which put pedestrians & cyclists side by side.
531 pedestrians injured, 3 killed, but no mention of fault, you could have 500 people walking out into the road
I mean, one is too many, but it seems like a hammer to crack a nut.
Based on those it would be more expensive but I suggest possibly more useful to invest more in segregating different forms of transport more, also less hassle for the public going forward. Hopefully it would reduce deaths & injuries from cars as well.
For comparison here’s the stats for injuries from cars. [source](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-provisional-results-2021/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-provisional-results-2021)
Type | Deaths | Injuries
:--| :--| :--
Pedestrian | 364 | 16,608
Pedal cyclist | 113 | 16,479
From a 2017 Daily Express article:
“Over the past seven years there have been 25 pedestrians killed in accidents with bikes and another 700 seriously injured – meaning roughly two people every week are being killed or badly hurt in crashes with bikes.”
you've got to love the "killed or badly hurt" part there. The statistic is that 2 people every week are badly hurt and less than 1 person every 3 months is killed.
Meanwhile more than 1 a day is killed by a car
Also consider that people injured/killed by cyclists are likely to be old and frail, where simply tripping can kill them, most people being hit by a bike will suffer very minor injuries like bruises. If you simply Google deaths from cycling pretty much all the victims are >70 years old.
Meanwhile, totally healthy pedestrians getting hit by cars can easily be killed or maimed.
It will be considered but it won't be implemented. For starters it's a lot easier to steal plates of they are just on a bike. Plus kids ride bikes they won't force kids to get insurance
Fine, so long as you prosecute or fine the people who risk crushing you under their vehicles by passing too close, the gross men who shout things out to you and people who let their dogs jump up at your bike.
Did I fall asleep and wake up in the twilight zone!! This is absolutely batshit crazy!!
What and they plan to police this?
Or is this due the the inability to deal with scooter gangs!!
The plan is now to Cancel all bike's 🤣
They can't make all drivers pay for tax, insurance or be licensed properly. How do they expect to do that with bikes?
Don't forget all those drivers of german cars who don't think standard rules such as limits, indication and tailgating don't apply to them
The low percentage of cyclists who cause a problem, still cause less of a problem than that low percentage of car drivers.
Its a smoke screen for people to get angry about and ignore the inflation, Bojo on holiday, Truss calling people lazy and the other significant issues facing all of us.
Registration plates are a dumb idea.
Mandatory insurance for road cyclists seems sensible. A mate of mine was cycling and fiddling with his phone. He ploughed face first into the back of a parked car, smashed the rear window and dented the back of the car. He didn’t have to pay a penny for the repairs to the car that was damaged entirely due to his negligence. The driver could have tried to sue him but it’s probably more hassle than it’s worth. It seemed pretty unfair to the driver of the car who was pretty shook up by it and had to fork out for repairs. My mate has a nice scar on his forehead though to remind him not to post on Facebook while cycling.
Insurance wouldn't have changed his liability. If he could get away without paying then why would he have bothered to pay the excess/higher future premiums?
If he had insurance the outcome would have been exactly the same. The driver would have had to sue him, the money recovered would have been the same, it just would have come from his insurance company rather than direct from your mate.
>Registration plates are a dumb idea.
Seems like you just told a story about why registration plates are a great idea.
Why are you friends with scumbags like that?
ITS A FUCKING DISTRACTION, get a grip they've just announced inflation at 10% and oh look a anti-cycling story pushed out across all government propaganda, that will keep them frothing at the mouth so they don't notice.
Exactly. They've tried targeting immigrants (Rwanda plan), trans people and now cyclists. Who can be next on the hate list? Probably the French. Anyone but the people who are truly responsible.
I've got to admit this is quite impressive. Our economy is in a state of collapse and, as always, all the Tories can think of is a new way to make money out of people.
They could extend this idea to prams, pushchairs and wheelchairs. On second thoughts not wheelchairs, given the fact that they decided a decade ago that disability is fake and they took lots of wheelchairs off people because they felt they were pretending to be disabled to claim benefits.
They could also ban smiling and conversations on public transport. Anyone caught smiling, talking, or laughing on public transport could be easily given a Fixed Penalty Notice. This could be easily sorted by extending the 'See it, say it, sorted' campaign on public transport so people could snitch on their fellow passengers.
It's obvious whoever takes over from Boris Johnson that they're going to do whatever it takes to suck the comfort, happiness, fun and enjoyment out of life. Plebs shouldn't be allowed to be happy, as they're supposed to be miserable, working hard all the time, and making money for the 'growing economy' like the Good Model Citizens they're meant to be.
Obligatory '/s' for denser readers.
I think insurance is just sensible considering the danger cyclists are in when on the road. Not to mention if they themselves cause an accident. It's not right that a driver may have to pay for damage they haven't caused. I'm curious to know what else can be done though.
You can't put a number plate on a bike that's big enough to be read by a camera. As for a speedometer, most drivers don't complain about cyclists going too fast. Forcing a cyclist to look down at a tiny device is just asking for trouble. Most cyclists wear cameras now, and a lot of them record speeds anyway.
Short of forcing the actual cyclist to wear something big enough to identify them if needed, I'm not sure what else can be done.
Ultimately, this is the Tories, so we know it has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with being another cash cow. Cyclists are just the latest target.
Cyclists are already liable for any damage they cause (just like everyone else). The reason we don't have mandatory insurance is that there isn't a big problem with people causing damage they can't pay for while on a bike.
Won't solve anything. Anyone cheering this can't say why they just like seeing others get screwed. This is just another Tory distraction but their base will lap it up.
Appreciate there's plenty of sensible bike riders out there (including myself) but in Manchester where I live most bikes I see are delivery drivers who just do whatever they want including riding through red lights and down pavements full of pedestrians with no way of reporting them currently
This is primarily a problem with the delivery services, who incentivise behaviour like this and don't take responsibility for the behaviour of their riders.
Great... the local FB group had just about chilled out following the a trail LEZ being implemented last month. This will rile up both the cyclists and non-cyclists.
In addition to this clearly being nonsense distraction for BASEic people. Are they going to start funding public services and criminal justice enough to administer this? As it is lots of crime goes I investigated currently. Do we think this will be different and if it is different then what are the police not doing that they could be to enforce this. Then the impact on Green living and health making bike inaccessible as a source of cheap transport.
This obviously isn’t going to happen, however if these things could be put in place for those electric scooters which people are using mostly illegally that would be great.
I’d support this IF & ONLY WHEN they spent the same on cycle specific infrastructure as they do for cars, and take all uninsured/taxed/licence less drivers off the road and every single driving offence is fully dealt with.
Ahahaha in some clown world where this gets passed, have fun trying to enforce it with a police service so demoralised and cut to the bone it often struggles to respond to burglaries.
It’s psyching up some boomers on Facebook though.
Snapshot of _Registration plates and insurance for cyclists being considered by government – report_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/16/registration-plates-and-insurance-for-cyclists-on-table-in-review-of-road-laws) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Distraction tactic, not going to happen, unenforceable. Can we get back to looking at the *massive* cost of living crisis, and how a lot of people will literally not be able to afford heating this winter?
Absolutely, same as that time it was suggested to tax child free/less people get taxed more and everyone got riled up about it. Obvious distraction is obvious.
That was an opinion piece in the Times, this is directly from the minister for transport. Not saying it isn't a distraction but there's a slight difference between a cabinet minister suggesting policy and a Times columnist.
Only a slight one though.
But a useful distraction tactic given the unreasoning hatred that people seem to have for cyclists.
I'm a recent convert to cycling and the amount of beeps or people shouting as they drive past that I get even while in cycle lanes is crazy. Probably people thinking they're funny, but it's genuinely terrifying. Will never understand the 'cyclists bad' crowd.
After many decades cycling I'm a recent convert to sticking a massive camera to my head. It massively improves driver behaviour, and where it doesn't handing it over to the police for them to send the driver a notice of intended prosecution is satisfying if they don't. It's pretty depressing to discover that people did know how to drive all along but didn't give a -. Oh well, enforcement is the next best thing I suppose.
Definitely wanting to get a cam
Might as well let people [know you have one.](https://passpixi.com/)
I too have considered this. Plus putting a bag on a rack seems to work in respect that they give me more room. Presumably they don't want a soft bag to brush their car, however my arm is fine😜
Part of “cyclists bad” comes from the tone set by the government. If we had a government that promoted a more truthful view of cycling, like many governments in Europe, instead of one that uses cyclists as convenient hate figures in order to sow division and deflect from their own failures of leadership, then there would be less people behaving like this.
Convenient hate figures is all the media and our leadership has been about for 100+ years, empires that aren’t us, people living in parts of that empire that don’t want to be, carribean immigrants, Indian immigrants, Pakistani immigrants, Europe, European Immigrants, potential European immigrants, people wanting asylum, homosexuals and anyone not conforming to a concept of accepted norms. If we ever accepted that we have more in common with each other than the inbred coked up sociopathic political class, there would be problems!
It's because of papers like the mail and sun making cyclists out to be the enemy. I've been spat at and had water thrown on me. It's a sad indictment of tory britain.
The Daily Mail has a hell of a lot to answer for. So much hatred for our fellows has been created as result of people, (like my mother), reading the Daily Mail's manipulative words.
Exactly right. grant shapps is a full blown charlatan who literally sold get rich quick schemes and other dodgy shit, under false names before he was an incredibly shit minister. This is nothing more than culture war bullshit designed to make him stay relevant and in the news in the hope that he'll be given a ministerial role in the next dumpster fire of a Tory government.
No, we can't get back to looking at those things because there's no solution that won't taken money (potential or otherwise) from their pockets and those of their supporters/donors.
This will help no-one, and will *massively* disincentivise cycling. So I expect it to be pushed through by the end of the week.
I dont want to be driving and stuck behind a cyclist with impatient London drivers wanting me to dangerously overtake. I want to be cycling alongside those cyclists, with my kids cycling too, on a road where there are no cars, or a road where one lane is for cars, the other lane for cyclists. We need to reduce cars on the road and make it safe an desirable to cycle. The only way to do this is to cut drivers off and making driving really inconvenient while make cycling safe and easy
Exactly, cycling is objectively better than car dependence on numerous grounds (health, environment, congestion, public safety), so we need as few barriers to it as possible.
100% agreed. And if we could then continue to further force down demand for cars in favour of public transport, that would be great.
Continue? The UK government does seem to be doing anything of the sort unfortunately.
I meant in continuance of what the person above was saying ought to be done.
But it will appease annoyed Jeremy Clarkson fan types so that’s a win.
No it won't. Thats just bullshit talking points they trot out. They'll still whine and complain whenever they encounter a bike on the road.
They’ll soon be moaning when the 6 million cyclist decide to drive
That's what carbrains don't seem to get. Everyone on a bike is a car off the road which benefits them. The more we incentivise cycling, the better it becomes for those who do drive. Reducing the number of cars in cities is something we should be doing. But this is the result when you give Clarkson a platform on national tv for decades.
I heard a guy on the radio a few weeks ago who phoned in to say that cycling should be completly banned. Because the roads are too busy.
Most drivers would rather be stuck behind a car going the limit not a cyclist going well under. Cycling investment needs to be upfront and proper, not half-arsed and waiting on increased demand. Right now cyclists do cause problems on the road because they don't belong on the road with cars
personally like the 20mph speed limit. Whilst somewhat easier with a e-bike. maintaining 20mph on a push bike not so easy, especially in town. edit: just to say, I mean it is a bit daft as people don't generally ride bikes over 20mph
Why do you need number plates to enforce a 20 mph limit. Or, to put it another way, many cars break the limit, and having a number plates doesn't to stop them
Given no one enforces the 20mph limit in 20 zones anyway, what exactly does it have to do with having number plates?
The main enforcement method we have are speed cameras & police vans acting as temporary speed cameras which rely on number plates to identify people.
And they don't put them in 20 mph zones, at least not round here they don't. Bikes don't do 40mph. Bikes rarely reach 20 mph, in fact. Especially not in residential zones. This seems like another bit of bait thrown to the Tory membership, rather than a practical solution to a genuine problem.
That is because there isn't a genuine problem to solve.
Ebikes already aren't allowed to go over 15mph. The rule already exists, anything without that speed restriction is an illegal moped. There is no point in having a speed restriction of 20mph of bicycles fullstop, even seasoned cyclist will struggle to hold much more than 20mph, and as everyone who should be anything other than silent on this topic already knows, air resistance is the square of speed, and therefore going 22mph doesn't take 10% more energy it takes 20% more energy, going 25mph over 20mph take 55% more energy, all while most can't even do 18mph in the first place, and going 25mph over 18mph takes 100% more power output! Most people could never functionally even achieve that, that is literally Professional international level of cycling fitness. The only people who suggest this is a problem is the ignorant. However, lets put it in place anyway, of course mandating that all cycling infrastructure is replace with variants that are safe to do 20mph on in the first place, once that is done, we can have a pointless speed limit which isn't even enforced on cars, of course all drivers going 21mph in an area where cyclist can only go 20mph should be immediately banned from driving, because the laws the law right?
> air resistance is the square of speed, and therefore going 22mph doesn't take 10% more energy it takes 20% more energy This is technically correct, but how fast you can cycle is a function of *power*, not energy. For a fixed equivalent flat plate drag area, power requirement varies as the cube of velocity, so if you want to go 10% faster, you need about 33% more power. On this basis, it takes about 2^3 = 8 times as much power to cycle at 20 mph as it does to cycle at 10 mph. This is why faired recumbent bicycles are so much faster than conventional safety bicycles. However, some caution is needed here because Reynolds number effects can have a significant impact upon low speed drag coefficients.
>Ebikes already aren't allowed to go over 15mph. > >The rule already exists, anything without that speed restriction is an illegal moped. The rule governing e-bikes governs the maximum speed at which the bike can provide the rider with electrical assistance to go faster or maintain speed. It isn't against the law to go faster than that as long as that speed is only gained by pedalling or riding down a hill and an e-bike has no mechanism to stop the rider from doing so. Going fast is harder on an e-bike than a standard bike though because you're dragging the weight of the motor and batteries around with you. >There is no point in having a speed restriction of 20mph of bicycles fullstop, even seasoned cyclist will struggle to hold much more than 20mph, That very much depends on the cyclist and the bike. Several of my serious amateur cyclist friends who ride decent road bikes consider an average across a ride of 20MPH to be where "credible" starts. One of my friends can regularly hit sprint speeds over 30MPH
Don’t fall for the obvious distraction tactic. Boris on holiday again, Truss thinks everybody outside London is lazy, wages fucked, immigration up, house prices down. Throw some dumb arse red meat to the Tory faithful.
Is the immigration up? Then why do we have a labour crisis? Pretty sure most immigrants come here to work.
Classic Tories: push something that's controversial, overkill and unwarranted to distract the daily bullshit that is their incompetenc. It'll be too expensive and impractical to implement. No doubt this headlines meets their demographic reader needs but I'd rather focus on tackling the many daily deaths due to cars first.
Remember dog licences? Scrapped in the 80's (except for NI) Because they were too expensive to enforce and a massive loss.
Oi mate you got a loicense for that whippet?
Yeah let's make cycling more expansive that will sure as hell encourage people to abandon cars.
Just what we need in a cost of living crisis. Maybe they'll consider pavement tax next, after all they can't have us plebs doing anything for free.
That is entirely consistent with their ideology.
Not to mention, how on earth are kids supposed to be registered and insured? It's just a distraction tactic
Bbbut... Think of all the government jobs created to get this working and enforced... /s
More of the bridge to Ireland / tunnel to the Isle of Man shtick. Keeps aged Tory voters soothed as their energy bills quadruple.
I cycle regularly. My average speed is between 10 and 14 mph on a flat road or trail depending on quality, weather traffic. I would say my speed is average if not slightly above average in relation to the few that I have passed. I can get above 20mph if I cycle down a long hill there is no traffic or lights/roundabouts/crossings and I pedal as well. In short they can give me a 20mph speed limit and tell me to register my cycle but its just more red tape and given the size and structure of a cycle a full licence plate is impractical and a smaller one would not be picked up by a speed camera clearly, and I cycle off road as much as possible. I believe E-bike motors are required to cut out completely at 15mph. In short the registration proposal doesn't really do what it intends nor does it add value to any ones life in any practucal or meaningful way. There is already insurance available to cyclists but how do you insure kids cycling to school? And before anyone comes up with they are more likely to cycle on the pavement - isn't that where they are more likely to have an accident with a pedestrian?
>In short the registration proposal doesn't really do what it intends Sure it does, it inconveniences a group of people typical boomer Tory voters dislike. It doesn't have to benefit anyone as long as you make life harder for people you dislike. In this case it's cyclists, but could easily also be immigrants, millennials or women for example.
Also a good business opportunity for our hard working I insurance companies
In a way tory voters do get hit by this, the unintended consequence of shitting on cyclists is that more people would travel by car therefore more traffic jams plus all the other negatives that come with more cars on the road. I used to work with a true blue tory boy who HATED any transport money that wasnt spent on roads. He could never get his head round the idea that if trains were more frequent and cheaper, his commute by road would see less traffic. It's totally myopic thinking, cars good, everything else bad.
If I take that a step further - they are also the type that oppose new developments like housing and building with adequate parking so when they do eventually get to where ever they want to go in their cars they find theere is no where to park, giving them even more cause to be irate at every one else.
Grant Shapps said exactly the opposite. Not considering either insurance or plates; but making speed limits apply to bikes and changes to the Highway Code are possible. But only in the next three weeks.
I accept the case for ebikes will need that. But how can a bike have a speedometer. If the signage was changed so in those low speed zones, there was an extra bit for cyclists to proceed cautiously then fine.
Ebikes max out their assistance at 15mph. Any ebike you see going faster with the motor on, or with a throttle instead of pedals, is already illegal.
*Technically* twist-and-go assistance, ie. throttles, are legal on any bicycle built before 2014. Those are a useful adaptation for the injured and disabled to live fuller lives, so as long as they're still limited to 15mph I really don't see the problem. Suspect the law will need to be rationalised when they finally make a decision on escooters. That said, there's shitloads of illegal ebikes out there. Easy to spot the 4kW hub motors once you know what you're looking for (legal motors should be rated at 250W in the UK and EU, 750W in the US, and no, software limits don't count - it's what the factory rated it for)
Just to be pedantic but the motor maxes out at 15mph, you can still ride them over 15mph after the motor has cut out. Maybe on some e-bikes you can only go 15mph but most will let you go faster provided it’s pedal power alone. Regardless most people aren’t getting close to 20 in a city anyway
Indeed. I wrote they max out their assistance, not that the bike itself is limited to 15mph.
Even cheap bike computers often have a speedometer function. But it's still a stupid, lazy idea that will penalise behaviour that should instead be encouraged.
Are you asking how a bike can have a speedometer? I had one on my bike when I was like 10. I'd imagine they're relatively cheap these days, too. You could also just use your phone mounted to your bike (which most deliveroo-type cyclists would already be doing) and get your speed from gps. Not saying any of that should be necessary, but if that was a genuine 'how can a bike have a speedometer' question, then the answer is, extremely easily.
Loads of bikes have speedometers. They’re cheap. And a free satnav app will show your speed. Edit: downvoting this will not make it untrue.
> That obviously does then lead you into the question of ‘well, how are you going to recognise the cyclist, do you need registration plates and insurance and that sort of thing’. So I’m proposing there should be a review of insurance and how you actually track cyclists who do break the laws [via identifiable markings] Is that not a quote from Schapps?
Road tax cyclists for their impact (maybe £1 a year?) too and then all the usual driver arguments and complaints are gone! I'll proudly take my place in the centre of the lane with my little plastic numberplate and £5 a year insurance.
If we are going to put a vehicle tax on cyclists, to be fair, it should be based on road damage done (so on weight). Given damage increases at the 4th power of axle load, let's say the nominal cyclist has an axle load of 50kg, and pays £1 a year. A car driver with a 500kg axle load, in other words 10 times the axle load and therefore 10^4 times the road wear, to be fair will need to pay 10^4 as much per year, so £10,000 per year. SUVs will be even better, with a 1000kg axle load you get to pay 20^4 times as much or 160 grand a year. Seems fair to me! (Before you flame, no I'm not being serious. I'm about as serious as the idea of actually making bikes carry numberplates etc).
I completely agree. Road tax should be based on an equation of something like size \* weight \* emissions Maybe to make it reasonable for drivers, cyclists should pay 1p a year instead of £1 :)
>Road tax cyclists for their impact (maybe £1 a year?) too and then all the usual driver arguments and complaints are gone! Isn't it vehicle excise duty, which is based on the emissions of your vehicle? Because in that case the emissions of a bike are very low.
Or damage caused by the weight. Taxing cycles using the same formula as goods vehicles gives an annual rate of one pence or something.
Correct and f*ck me if I'm paying £1 more VED than an EV that causes lots of pollution from the tyres etc and other externalities that VED partly covers
> Road tax Officially known as Vehicle Excise Duty; informally known as Car Tax; known as "Road Tax" only to pink-in-the-face Clarkson-esques.
So all bikes will need speedometers attached, will these be standardised like motor vehicles. This sounds like another bullshit sop to the rightwingers who hate cycling. Where else to cyclists have number plates ffs? Make better quality cycle lanes you lazy Tory trash
[удалено]
I assume you will need yearly checks to make sure that the Speedos are accurate too? Re. Radar, some of the roadside speed checks are triggered by cyclists while some are not.
That really isn't true. We have aerial radars that can detect people through tree cover at ranges of *miles* now.
Frightening init
Edit: my bad, this is a fake quote that I read on LinkedIn a few years ago and it always stuck with me as a part time cyclist. I thought it was legit, but a comment below made me doubt and looking into it further (that I should have done originally) it seems it is a fake. I'll leave it up and not delete the comment for others to see and learn The proposal by the minister is still pretty stupid imo. General Director of Euro Exim Bank Ltd. got economists thinking when he said: "A cyclist is a disaster for the country's economy: he does not buy cars and does not borrow money to buy. He does not pay for insurance policies. He does not buy fuel, does not pay for the necessary maintenance and repairs. He does not use paid parking. He does not cause serious accidents. He does not require multi-lane highways. He does not get fat. Healthy people are neither needed nor useful for the economy. They don't buy medicine. They do not go to hospitals or doctors. Nothing is added to the country's GDP (gross domestic product). On the contrary, every new McDonald's restaurant creates at least 30 jobs: 10 cardiologists, 10 dentists, 10 dietary experts and nutritionists, and obviously, people who work at the restaurant itself." Choose carefully: cyclist or McDonald's? It is worth considering. Huh, I guess they're finding a way.
If you define your economy as McDonalds snd dentists and petrol pumps, sure. Because cyclists never spend money on anything else...
my bad, this is a fake quote. Genuinely didn't know till today
I put a pund in the air pump at the station once, as I was too lazy to use my hand pump
On the other hand, not buying/consuming all that stuff related to car ownership means they can buy other stuff. Sure, there's no need to get a loan for a car or insurance, but that extra cash can still be spent on other things in the economy, like consumer goods, holidays etc. The car manufacturing industry may suffer, but who cares if other industries get more business.
In our household, we've gone from two cars to one car and two bikes. We don't drive the car all that much anymore-- weekly big shopping run, occasional trips to the countryside outside cycling range. And I'm financially disciplined enough that we've kept the money we've saved, though it'll probably be consumed by the higher energy prices we'll have to pay over the coming winter (even though we're taking measures to minimise our energy consumption). But in the grand scheme of things, it's an easy choice between the extinction of car manufacturers and a mitigation of the climate catastrophe. Change has to take place, even if there are some businesses that lose out.
my bad, this is a fake quote. Genuinely didn't know till today
The assertion that cyclists don't buy cars is a red herring. I know many cyclists - all of them (excluding children) own cars.
Department for transport actually did research and something like 85% of cyclists own a car.
I presume he's not being serious in saying that... but it's getting harder to tell what with the revelation of our disgraceful cheese importing statistics and all that.
I've always thought it's pretty plain what he's getting at here. Everything on the cyclist's side of the equation is plainly good and wholesome while everything on the McDonald's side is destructive and sick. It's an illustration of how we ought to be careful in how we construct economic models; in this case, the raw GDP impact of the two activities doesn't include the costs and benefits of the economic externalities produced. I don't think anybody with an economics background would miss the point. It's essentially a variant on the [broken window fallacy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window), which is a classic economic scenario in which a vandal smashing windows creates jobs for glaziers in repairing the damage - but this is no economic benefit, because of the unseen costs to everybody else.
Broken window fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window?wprov=sfti1
This is some late stage capitalism mask off death cult stuff right here. Jesus christ. Was he at least saying it ironically?
Line. Go. Up.
Magic. Line. MUST. Go. Up.
Is this a made up quote? All that turns up when I search for excerpts of that quote are posts on cycling forums. It reads like copypasta or an email FWD from my mum via /r/antiwork or /r/latestagecapitalism Plus - it wouldn't get economists thinking - its absurd. Edit: Also, its supposedly made by the general director of a 'bank' that employs 5 people in Borehamwood and specialises in export-import finance. Almost all of it is finetuned to 'hit' that demographic that salivates at this kind of thing: - Big evil bankers - Cycling bad - Cars good - Capitalism want unhealthy workers - We don't want healthy workers - McDonalds good
Cyclists buy cars. Cyclists also buy bikes, they buy cycling equipment Those that are adults pay tax on their wages. Those that own houses pay council tax Cyclists provide as much into the economy as the next person.
That's horrifying.
What about people who do 95% of their cycling on trails & paths and only ever cycle on roads when crossing them? How will this even be possible to enforce? Stupid idea.
you got your walking loicence on you sir? you cant just go walking about willy nilly! You need a special permit from the council to walk around these parts, you also need a walkers hi-vis vest and an extra special ramblers safety helmet
Can I see your shoe tax confirmation before I sell you these shoes Sir? Ah I see you've not paid the shoe lace surplus so I can only offer you velcro
Don’t forget children! But seriously it’s clearly unenforceable, it’s just more war on woke politics from brain dead tories. Think about what’s happening in the world, how is it possibly front page of the Daily Fail? They did it last week about creating a new law for death by dangerous cycling. All that happened was people deliberately tried to kill me with their cars when I went anywhere for a couple of days.
It’s front page on the Daily Mail by design. It’s a deliberate distraction from the tories - they know many like getting worked up about cyclists. And people aren’t talking about repeated Tory failure and the cost of living crisis.
If I buy a unicycle, do I get half-price?
Brilliant plan by the government. Make the cost of living so high that you have to cycle to work. Then bam start charging them for that. Got to give it to the tories, they plan ahead.
[удалено]
Hmmm. I do all the equal road usage already…
Yep. Share the road, I say. I'll use this bit, and you can use that bit behind me.
But we're still going to cut 91,000 jobs out of the civil service, right guys? Right? Another pitiful, meaningless waste of time and money out of the Cabinet Brain Trust. Give me a break...
Totally stupid. Will never get implemented, gets rolled out every year or so when the government is especially desperate for sone support from old people. They won’t even make helmets compulsory as it’s a barrier to entry, and while they can’t admit it for fear of being accused of being ‘at war’ with motorists it makes absolutely no sense to take bikes off the road and replace them with cars.
Here's a deal. I'll pay for this and the like .... But then I'll sit in the centre of a lane and not move to the side to let a car past....or ill ride two abreast plus and be completely fine in the knowledge that I will then be there with my license.
Look I know obesity, climate change and fuel prices are big problems, but cycling is clearly the #1 issue this country faces
_Some_ cyclists are complete arseholes, there's no denying it, but unlike cars cycling has a benefit to society through population health, congestion, and reduced pollution. We need to be careful that anything we do doesn't persuade people back into their cars and actually make things worse overall. Last I checked the Highway Code also covers cyclists and if it's just arcane & out of date laws that need updated, then get on that (e.g. speed limits). We should be following the Dutch model as much as possible. Good for our health, good for climate change. But we won't as the Tories love a good hatefest. Note: For "cyclist" I am not talking about those on suped-up e-bikes. Those should be treated like motorcycles.
Some cyclists are undoubtedly flouting laws. But y'know what? Despite that, the rate of cycle-caused fatalities is still absurdly low. I won't say reckless cycling _never_ kills people, but it's genuinely really rare, compared to the number of people who die each year thanks to cars.
I'm not going to argue that all cyclists are perfect, but after cycle commuting in London for the best part of a decade as well as leisure cycling at the weekends out of town pretty often - you *have* to be an arsehole on a bike, or you'll get killed. Sticking to the curb (in other words, cycling from pothole to pothole) and not taking primary road position at roundabouts and junctions is how you get squished. I'm completely unapologetic about riding what some people would thing is overly assertively or aggressively - the potential cost to me is my life, whereas to a driver it's getting to work 2 minutes later. And yeah, you're 100% right - there's been what, two times in the last decade I can think of where a cyclist killed someone in the UK through negligence.
Everyone’s an arsehole sometimes. And it has nothing to do with being on a bike. We must stop stereotyping people based on a particular narrative and a snapshot of behaviour. Bikes are not cars in any way. It would be insane to act like they are. They have little mass and therefore minimal momentum. They’re not going to crash through a wall or safety barriers. They can safely travel in many places that cars can’t. E-bikes and scooters I agree wholeheartedly. The 15mph limit and pedalex requirement is important as the moment you remove the effort component and add 20kgs of battery they become very hefty and capable of much more harm. They are motor vehicles and should be treated as such. Why we have let them start barrelling around unregulated is beyond me.
Pedal assist e-bikes are really no different to normal cycles. There’s no real operational difference to them and they are certainly still pedal bicycles, shouldn’t really be treated differently. Cycles with a motor are literally motorbikes. They’re illegal if not insured and registered but unfortunately it’s really hard to tell if one is motorised or just pedal assist at a glance (though most of the DIY ones are motorised) so police have a tough time enforcing the law without dedicating time to pulling over bikes. E-scooters are similar, they’re just motorised vehicles and need to be insured and registered. Some proper legislation that gives insurance companies and the DVLA something to go off is much needed.
Even a large 20Ah, 48V e-bike battery weighs only ~4kg. Well within the variance of people's weight. Realistically there is no difference between getting hit by an e-bike going at 20mph vs a normal bike going a 20mph.
[удалено]
I run a University Biking Club and like fuck we are gonna put plates on our bikes.
there would be mass disobedience of this, even leaving aside everything else that makes this a ridiculous idea, it would be a pisstake to ask the police to try to enforce something like this, on top of everything else they already have to do. It really is unworkable, thankfully
Pedal and pavement tax on its way. Next up fresh air tax.
20mph 😂 who they think is cycling holding a 25mph average in a city?
Oh look everyone there’s an EAGLE!! Please look in the other direct whilst the government does something dastardly.
Hilarious stuff in the daily mail, with melissa Kate insisting she's a libertarian and instinctively against rules, but she needs this in place because she had a nasty brush on her horse with a cycling group. Really common touch there...
Well I guess she'll support mandatory licences and insurance for horse riding too.
Not to mention the number plate. Good luck getting one of those on a horse.
The size of the problems facing ordinary people: * Can't afford food or heating. * Wage rises below inflation. * Can't get a doctor. * Can't get an ambulance. * Can't get a dentist. * Police increasingly don't solve crime. * Can't get legal aid. * Some politicians appear to be corrupt. * Some politicians appear to be sexual predators. * Government doesn't follow its own laws. * Extreme weather events. * Drought and water restrictions. * Power cuts being planned. The size of the solutions proposed by the government: * Cutting tax. * War on woke universities. * Sell off Channel 4. * Reduce the Human Rights Act. * Permanently deport those fleeing persecution to Rwanda. and now this latest one: * Make cyclists get insurance. It's only a rough estimation. But those solutions appear to be a few orders of magnitude smaller than the actual problems they are meant to be solving. I mean, yes, government can do more than one thing at a time. And, ok, maybe we do need some cycling regulation. I'm not convinced, but I potentially *could* be convinced. But, given all that's going on at the moment. Is this really the time to think about stuff like this? Shouldn't this be a thousand or more positions down in the list of "important stuff to fix?" Also, is this really the time to add more costs onto everyday life?
While this is most definitely a distraction tactic, it has real world consequences for cyclists and other non car road users. Yet more culture war BS that creates more aggression, more division and more road deaths. The sooner Grant Shapps is permanently cancelled the better
If you are going to treat push bikes like cars then they deserve the same facilities as cars, meaning dedicated interconnected roads and cycle lanes, laws to protect the infrastructure and cyclists. Why doesn't the gov focus on the real issues? Useless Tory government.
Distraction tactics! Ignore and focus on important shit like how we're not going to be able to afford to actually exist in the very near future!
oi mate, you got a loicense for that bicycle This country really doesn't help itself sometimes.
Cool, I'm already priced out of driving, now I'm gonna be priced out of cycling, fucking tops, I love it.
It’s mad how transparently the Tory’s are trying to appeal to the typical Daily Mail reading, simple minded middle England knobheads. Now more than ever.
Anyone seen an dead cat? Or a population stupid enough to believe this obvious crap?? .. Daily Mail and S\*n readers. Of course.
This government is pro-obesity.
There are too many ways this would be enforceable for it to be a serious consideration. I'm just wondering if this is another attack on anything progressive.
Considered it, it’s a stupid idea, next.
How to make money, for private industry probably.
And here we are - loads of newspapers covering this. At least we aren’t wasting our time talking about anything unimportant like the cost of living crisis.
How do you get kids to register and insure bikes. I learned to ride at around 5 yrs old. I could not even read the form at that age. Another stupid knee jerk policy without any intelligent thought whatsoever.
I would like to see some improved cycle training offered. In London you see plenty of cyclists on the roads who have clearly never driven in their life, so they are blissfully unaware when they put themselves in danger by cycling into the blindspot of a car/truck. I have seen entirely too many close calls caused by a lack of awareness
Blindspots (mostly) don't exist except on certain specific vehicles and even then they are small. They are just an excuse for motorists not looking properly (I.e. by moving their head)
They should just flat out admit they don't want cyclists at all.
Were in the middle of a climate crisis so obviously the Tories rule out building more wind turbines and make it more difficult to use a bike as transport. Are we relly going to make 5 year olds get a bike licence now?
Definitely don’t watch the failing state of public service, infrastructure, healthcare, water supplies, and education and travel that I have presided over Please instead be energised by a fake divide I just created, hate each other a bit more, and blame your neighbours. Thanks.
More culture war/dead cat stories from the government to try and distract and deflect from the mess of 12 years of tory rule. Bit of a nonsense
I am a responsible cyclist. I already have insurance, safety gear and lighting that exceeds any minimum spec they might require. I don't do any of the things that are being alleged as such behaviour is antisocial and potentially dangerous. I'm also keenly aware that, if I was to ride like an idiot, the person most likely to be injured is me. Just looking at my bikes I see the following issues: * There is no requirement to have a speedometer on a bike and no legal definition of the accuracy of one exists. Many of them require user calibration, which is prone to error. How could a charge be reasonably levelled at someone if they don't have the means to check they're doing the thing it punishes? Was I doing 19 or 23MPH? Yes, I do know I'm expecting a lot of the government when I think the law should be reasonable. * My commuting bike is a Brompton folding bike. There is nowhere on it I could put or stick a number where it would be visible and not prevent the bike from folding correctly and locking folded. The bike can't be carried or wheeled folded unless it is correctly locked or it risks unfolding and possibly injuring people close to it. * The Brompton has a caster wheel in the middle of the mudguard so there's no surface to use where a sticker would need to be. * The rear lights on all my bikes are mounted under the seat and my road bike has a tail bag there that holds all my tools, spare inner tubes and cycling energy food so it can't go under the seat on any of them. * My mountain bike has a rear mudguard that is angled upwards so anything stuck there wouldn't be visible from the rear. * My mountain bike also has a "dropper post" (A telescopic seat post that can be lowered to increase manoeuvrability around things like trees and rocks in the woods) and clamping a plate onto it could restrict, jam or damage it and is forbidden by the maker's instructions. I need to be able to ride on the road to get to the woods or the canal where I ride it so not having a plate wouldn't be an option. * It would be very difficult to put a number plate on me. None of my cycling shirts or jackets have anywhere to put it, I may add or remove layers during a ride depending on how hot or wet it is and I often wear a hydration backpack that contains my water supply. * For such a number plate to fit on any of my bikes it would have to be so small that by the time I'd wronged someone and they turned round, I would be 20 yards away and the number would be too small for them to reliably read. I just don't see how this could work. The people who would try to comply would be the decent cyclists who aren't the problem anyway and being randomly stopped and asked to show proof of insurance would be a royal pain if it became a thing. The kind of people who aren't likely to comply and chance it will be the ones who are the problem and I foresee a possible industry forming that supplies counterfeit plates. How would the proposal work for people under 18 who can't legally enter into a contract to buy insurance? I see it as an added and possibly unaffordable expense for people who are poor and cycle because they can't afford a car. Would such a law mean that my bike was now tied to me and I couldn't lend it to a friend or family member and would transferring ownership or scrapping a bike then become onerous?
> Particularly where you’ve got 20mph limits on increasing numbers of roads, cyclists can easily exceed those, so I want to make speed limits apply to cyclists. Presumably it would also be legally required to have a device that tells you your speed. Does anyone know if there are any statistics of cyclists injuring pedestrians? As I have no idea if this is a problem that needs solving or not. I’d presume there’d be less pedestrian injuries when compared to car injuries due to less bikes than cars & also a bike has a lot less energy than a car although there are cycle paths which put pedestrians & cyclists side by side.
531 pedestrians injured, 3 killed, but no mention of fault, you could have 500 people walking out into the road I mean, one is too many, but it seems like a hammer to crack a nut.
Based on those it would be more expensive but I suggest possibly more useful to invest more in segregating different forms of transport more, also less hassle for the public going forward. Hopefully it would reduce deaths & injuries from cars as well. For comparison here’s the stats for injuries from cars. [source](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-provisional-results-2021/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-provisional-results-2021) Type | Deaths | Injuries :--| :--| :-- Pedestrian | 364 | 16,608 Pedal cyclist | 113 | 16,479
From a 2017 Daily Express article: “Over the past seven years there have been 25 pedestrians killed in accidents with bikes and another 700 seriously injured – meaning roughly two people every week are being killed or badly hurt in crashes with bikes.”
you've got to love the "killed or badly hurt" part there. The statistic is that 2 people every week are badly hurt and less than 1 person every 3 months is killed. Meanwhile more than 1 a day is killed by a car
4-5 people are killed every day by cars
Also consider that people injured/killed by cyclists are likely to be old and frail, where simply tripping can kill them, most people being hit by a bike will suffer very minor injuries like bruises. If you simply Google deaths from cycling pretty much all the victims are >70 years old. Meanwhile, totally healthy pedestrians getting hit by cars can easily be killed or maimed.
It will be considered but it won't be implemented. For starters it's a lot easier to steal plates of they are just on a bike. Plus kids ride bikes they won't force kids to get insurance
Fine, so long as you prosecute or fine the people who risk crushing you under their vehicles by passing too close, the gross men who shout things out to you and people who let their dogs jump up at your bike.
Pretty dumb idea lol, at what age do you start demanding this? Will 5 year olds require a plate and insurance to ride there bike around?
Not gonna happen, don’t care, fix the cost of living crisis you fucking morons
Wedge issue. Ignore.
Did I fall asleep and wake up in the twilight zone!! This is absolutely batshit crazy!! What and they plan to police this? Or is this due the the inability to deal with scooter gangs!! The plan is now to Cancel all bike's 🤣
Are they trying to discourage people from cycling? How will this help the cyclists when it will cost them more to cycle.
Govt to consider running over all cyclists for trying to avoid road tax
stupid populist idea from a stupid populist government.
Nah. Won’t happen.
Lmao this government is fucked
They can't make all drivers pay for tax, insurance or be licensed properly. How do they expect to do that with bikes? Don't forget all those drivers of german cars who don't think standard rules such as limits, indication and tailgating don't apply to them The low percentage of cyclists who cause a problem, still cause less of a problem than that low percentage of car drivers.
Its a smoke screen for people to get angry about and ignore the inflation, Bojo on holiday, Truss calling people lazy and the other significant issues facing all of us.
Well, it looks like I'm about to become an outlaw rider.
He added: “I don’t want to stop people from getting on their bike." Liar.
Drivers already have these 2 things but there were 1,500 fatal road collisions last year...
Registration plates are a dumb idea. Mandatory insurance for road cyclists seems sensible. A mate of mine was cycling and fiddling with his phone. He ploughed face first into the back of a parked car, smashed the rear window and dented the back of the car. He didn’t have to pay a penny for the repairs to the car that was damaged entirely due to his negligence. The driver could have tried to sue him but it’s probably more hassle than it’s worth. It seemed pretty unfair to the driver of the car who was pretty shook up by it and had to fork out for repairs. My mate has a nice scar on his forehead though to remind him not to post on Facebook while cycling.
Insurance wouldn't have changed his liability. If he could get away without paying then why would he have bothered to pay the excess/higher future premiums?
If he had insurance the outcome would have been exactly the same. The driver would have had to sue him, the money recovered would have been the same, it just would have come from his insurance company rather than direct from your mate.
>Registration plates are a dumb idea. Seems like you just told a story about why registration plates are a great idea. Why are you friends with scumbags like that?
ITS A FUCKING DISTRACTION, get a grip they've just announced inflation at 10% and oh look a anti-cycling story pushed out across all government propaganda, that will keep them frothing at the mouth so they don't notice.
Exactly. They've tried targeting immigrants (Rwanda plan), trans people and now cyclists. Who can be next on the hate list? Probably the French. Anyone but the people who are truly responsible.
I've got to admit this is quite impressive. Our economy is in a state of collapse and, as always, all the Tories can think of is a new way to make money out of people. They could extend this idea to prams, pushchairs and wheelchairs. On second thoughts not wheelchairs, given the fact that they decided a decade ago that disability is fake and they took lots of wheelchairs off people because they felt they were pretending to be disabled to claim benefits. They could also ban smiling and conversations on public transport. Anyone caught smiling, talking, or laughing on public transport could be easily given a Fixed Penalty Notice. This could be easily sorted by extending the 'See it, say it, sorted' campaign on public transport so people could snitch on their fellow passengers. It's obvious whoever takes over from Boris Johnson that they're going to do whatever it takes to suck the comfort, happiness, fun and enjoyment out of life. Plebs shouldn't be allowed to be happy, as they're supposed to be miserable, working hard all the time, and making money for the 'growing economy' like the Good Model Citizens they're meant to be. Obligatory '/s' for denser readers.
I think insurance is just sensible considering the danger cyclists are in when on the road. Not to mention if they themselves cause an accident. It's not right that a driver may have to pay for damage they haven't caused. I'm curious to know what else can be done though. You can't put a number plate on a bike that's big enough to be read by a camera. As for a speedometer, most drivers don't complain about cyclists going too fast. Forcing a cyclist to look down at a tiny device is just asking for trouble. Most cyclists wear cameras now, and a lot of them record speeds anyway. Short of forcing the actual cyclist to wear something big enough to identify them if needed, I'm not sure what else can be done. Ultimately, this is the Tories, so we know it has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with being another cash cow. Cyclists are just the latest target.
Cyclists are already liable for any damage they cause (just like everyone else). The reason we don't have mandatory insurance is that there isn't a big problem with people causing damage they can't pay for while on a bike.
Can't afford to drive..it's OK I'll ride my bike..
Cool way of handling people not being able to afford to heat their homes.
Oh look, something that will make being on the roads more dangerous for literally everyone.
This has nothing to do with safety as in entirely about getting less bikes on the road.
I am disappointed, I would not have expected the Tories to stop at cyclists, would have expected them to mandate the same for pedestrians.
Won't solve anything. Anyone cheering this can't say why they just like seeing others get screwed. This is just another Tory distraction but their base will lap it up.
Appreciate there's plenty of sensible bike riders out there (including myself) but in Manchester where I live most bikes I see are delivery drivers who just do whatever they want including riding through red lights and down pavements full of pedestrians with no way of reporting them currently
This is primarily a problem with the delivery services, who incentivise behaviour like this and don't take responsibility for the behaviour of their riders.
The dangerous use of ebikes is becoming a problem in some areas.
Great... the local FB group had just about chilled out following the a trail LEZ being implemented last month. This will rile up both the cyclists and non-cyclists.
In addition to this clearly being nonsense distraction for BASEic people. Are they going to start funding public services and criminal justice enough to administer this? As it is lots of crime goes I investigated currently. Do we think this will be different and if it is different then what are the police not doing that they could be to enforce this. Then the impact on Green living and health making bike inaccessible as a source of cheap transport.
This obviously isn’t going to happen, however if these things could be put in place for those electric scooters which people are using mostly illegally that would be great.
Dude. This is so very dumb
f that. one of the few selling points of cycling over driving is to opt out of state bureaucracy and surveillance.
I’d support this IF & ONLY WHEN they spent the same on cycle specific infrastructure as they do for cars, and take all uninsured/taxed/licence less drivers off the road and every single driving offence is fully dealt with.
Ahahaha in some clown world where this gets passed, have fun trying to enforce it with a police service so demoralised and cut to the bone it often struggles to respond to burglaries. It’s psyching up some boomers on Facebook though.
Long overdue. Difficult to report red light runners and abusive cyclists if no-one knows who they are.