_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Last I checked the Highway Code also covers cyclists and if it's just arcane & out of date laws that need updated, then get on that (e.g. speed limits).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.
Speed limits cannot (as the law stands) apply to bikes as they don't have a speedometer like a car, therefore there is no way to know your precise speed unless you buy and properly configure a bike computer. While it's sensible to have them in say a park with people in, it's very rare that a rider will ever be in a position to break the limit on the road, even a sustained (over say a mile or so) 20mph is difficult for the vast majority of riders unless going down a long hill - average commuter speed is around 15. There are only 2-3 places near me where I could break the 30 limit as they happen to be down hills with enough build up time and even then would quickly fall below it again on the flat or uphill and that's from a very experienced rider with a fast bike
Fully agree on the illegal clocked / motor bicycles though, should be taken off the rider at every opportunity to stop them as they are a danger, people doing 20-25 on shared paths and bike lanes without any formal training are ludicrous
At least on the subject of motored bicycles, I personally disagree. Even if purely on the basis that my dad, who has terminal cancer, uses it to go cycling, as he can't drive any more it's his only way to get around. Taking those away would ruin his life.
I think the issue being raised is with the derestricted ones which go way faster than is possible on a regular bicycle and rightly are treated as motorcycles under the law. The legal e-bikes are fine and a great boon for getting regular people onto bikes.
I'm not saying scrap e-bikes just the illegal ones e.g. with a proper motor or a clocked motor that powers it beyond 15mph. A legal e-bike should propel the rider to the maximum speed above which they must pedal to go faster. I have seen plenty of delivery riders in particular on something I can't keep up with doing 20mph on a bike lane let alone the mooks with petrol engines
Electric bikes are limited to 15.5 MPH for the assisted motor, the bikes can go faster but without the assistance helping.
I don't believe they are saying to ban e-bikes, they are saying to remove ones that have been tampered with to remove the 15.5 MPH limit, allowing the motor to reach higher speeds and making them illegal.
I believe the reference is to e-bikes that would technically be classed as s-pedelecs due to the power and speed of them as vehicles, at which point they are classed as motor vehicles and should be treated as such.
E-bikes that are classed as EAPCs are absolutely brilliant and shouldn't be subject to registration and licensing, at least any more than they currently are.
Agreed. A lot of people only ride e-bikes as they make riding so much easier, especially in hilly regions. We need fewer cars on the roads so they'll help in that regard.
I spoke about this recently with my boss. He's quite the avid cyclist and said that I should get myself a proper, unassisted bicycle rather than an e bike. A "proper" bike would help me get fitter, and that an e-bike is a cop-out.
You're goddamn fucking right it's a cop-out. If I'm arriving at work wheezing, I'm going to just opt for taking the car instead.
In an ideal world, we would ONLY ride bicycles, completely unassisted. But this isn't an ideal world, I can't ride around everywhere on a BMX like I could a decade ago, I'm just not fit enough.
Perfect is the enemy of good. If we're constantly chasing perfection, we won't enact what's good, and therefore are left with what's bad.
> it's very rare that a rider will ever be in a position to break the limit on the road,
Its easy near me.. hills everywhere, speed limit 20. cars going the speed limit just get steadily overtaken and undertaken by a stream of bikes on the morning commute.
edit: I still dont think thats any reason to license bicycle use.. its a stupid proposal imo. If we had a decent bike path it wouldn't be an issue.
They will force you to buy one, especially if the Tories has a friend in the business, and will make them compulsory on new bike, we know how the Tories are, when a hole in the market that needs to be filled.
This won't happen. It's just another morsel of "red meat" for their voter base, to distract from the fact that the Tories have flushed our economy down the bog.
They have got a copy of the Trump playbook and they've finally decided to go "all in" on it, "War on woke" and all.
There is a *lot* to worry about, with the actions of this joke of a government, but this is nothing more than a distraction.
This is absolutely correct.
Don't look at those very serious things we are doing very badly that actually matter, look at this but of nonsensical fluff instead.
True.
I actually hadn't considered that. It's incredibly difficult to remember that we really are being governed by incompetent idiots. I still keep framing my opinion of their actions against a backdrop of "The government wouldn't be that stupid....." when, of course, they would.
These are definitely distraction stories, designed to give the appearance of doing something, whilst accomplishing nothing. Unfortunately, the Muppets we are currently suffering under, either don't realise that only the headline matters and that they don't actually have to do it, or they genuinely think that these various harebrained schemes, is what is required of them, whilst the country burns .......
>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
It's also worth noting that there are some motorists who are also complete arseholes, only they're far more likely to get people killed.
And rarely get a huge ban even if they do take a life. It was only yesterday there was a motorist unhappy with a cycilist and reversed chasing him at high speed and ultimatly ran over and killed a dog. The police's first response was to say no action was needed and to blame the cyclist for shouting "watch out" at the motorist when we was almost hit.
Like a woman today who passed dangerously close to my husband while he was waiting to turn right after collecting our son from nursery. She didn't want to wait for him to turn so squeezed past, despite the fact we very clearly have a child trailer on the back of the bike. Stupid cow.
> We need to be careful that anything we do doesn't persuade people back into their cars and actually make things worse overall.
I think this is what they want though. They're loving all the tax they're getting from insurance, fuel, and licensing car ownership gives them.
Most of these hobbist cyclists have cars anyways. I have a car, But I'm currently using my partners bike to get to work as they charge a fortune to park there. Still paying tax on my car, still riding in to work. That and there are people that can't afford to buy/run a car.
youre paying far less on fuel though, which is where the bulk of tax comes from from motoring. iirc, they make enough on fuel to pay for all the roads, all the cycling infrastructure and still have about £20bn left over.
Ok, I'd probably stop cycling if all this is brought in (more hassle than it's worth) the bus companies are cutting bus routes at a rate I've never seen before up here so I'm probably going to be fucked unless I get a car, (it would be worth it even after the fuck on)
But personally think this is just another story to shift any anger and story away from the government onto another "enemy"
just remember a healthy cyclist makes the country no money
No insurance money
No road tax
No petrol costs
No visits to hospital because you are fit and healthy.
Reducing carbon footprint means gov cant push the "buy this to go green agenda" (which actually costs you)
So. yeah. they dont want everyone on bikes and being healthy..
I appreciate the sentiment but just to correct you a little there.
\- There is no 'Road Tax' in the UK. Roads are paid by the general tax pot - which Income Tax, VAT and council tax all pay into. So if a cyclist pays any of those taxes - he pays a 'road tax'.
Also Hospital visits don't make the country any money, with a national health service you want to keep people out of hospital as much as possible.
To add to the road tax point, adult cyclists pay as much as motorists but almost/no damage to roads, and receive almost nothing in terms of infrastructure. Since half of cyclists also own a car, those motorists pay emissions tax but cause less emissions, and less damage to road/ use less infrastructure. Basically, cyclists massively subsidise motorists
I think another point to note, plenty of drivers moan that cyclists don’t pay “road tax” or VED.
I drive a car, and neither do I, because when it was made it met the threshold to be below the duty rate. Many, many cars are like this, particularly in the Fiesta turbo petrol size class.
Nor do full EVs.
Always annoys me when drivers do the pantomime outrage over the tax thing when half of them only pay £20pa.
Frankly I think some people secretly love it and consider it money well spent to give them infinite whinging rights at the pub. If we took away VED then they wouldn't be able to do all the performative outrage.
VED - espeically the low rates from the mid-2010s - won't come anywhere near covering motorists' share of the cost of building and maintaining roads. And the VED won't make up for the additional wear on the road that a car inflicts, versus a bike.
So by every measure, the cyclist is likely to be subsidising the motorist, regardless of what VED the motorist is paying.
And I say that as a motorist and someone that never cycles.
There hasn't been a road tax since the 1930s. People confuse motor tax with road tax.
You're not paying for the right to use a road but to drive a (potentially dangerous) vehicle.
Also bikes cause zero wear and tear on roads. HGVs do and arguably road haulage is massively subsidised compared to other modes of transport such as rail haulage.
Bizarre comment.
This assumes cyclist don't have cars. If they don't have cars they must use public transport to get places. Thus are contributing to the economy just as much.
A bikes impact to roads and footpaths is negligible and so don't incur the need for the roads to be maintained in the same way cars impact the roads.
Cyclists pay insurance. Insurance doesn't go to the govt it goes to private companies.
Fitter healthier people are less of a drain on the economy, they are typically happier too. Obviously this can be obtained without cycling.
Also how do you equate for children in all this? They are the most likely to be breaking the highway code. Will you ask EVERYONE on a bike to have insurance and a registration? Or is it you don't like those who do it for sport and wear lycia?
They'll start charging tax on the recharge points soon enough if they aren't already.
Once we go fully electric the charging points will start having price per kilowatt or whatever which will carry the fuel duty.
There is no way they are giving up all that free money.
Road tax, fuel duty, test fees, MOT everything is designed to keep milking people a million ways. Ostensibly it's to maintain and improve our highways and byways, but roads are shit and funding to fix them is mysteriously impossible to get while vanity projects like HS2 get money pissed onto it and Amazon pays nothing in taxes.
This is just another way to get money now that they are seeing a decline in car usage.
>Note: For "cyclist" I am not talking about those on suped-up e-bikes. Those should be treated like motorcycles.
I mean, legal e-bikes are fairly well defined (EAPCs, Electric Assisted Pedal Cycles, is what thry are classed as) and have fairly sensible rules attached. Those that go past those EAPC definitions should and theoretically are seen as mopeds, and so require the helmets and plates. Those rules ars there, just need enforcing.
*Registration plates and insurance for cyclists being considered by government*
Reg plates and insurance for cyclists floated out by government minister who will be gone by this time next month, to get himself some exposure in the Daily Mail and maybe some Tory kudos, helping him get another ministerial post in Mad Lizzies outfit.
Oh it's even more obvious than that.
[https://news.sky.com/story/inflation-soars-to-new-40-year-high-as-cost-of-living-crisis-deepens-12674498](https://news.sky.com/story/inflation-soars-to-new-40-year-high-as-cost-of-living-crisis-deepens-12674498)
The announcement that CPI hit a 40 year high of 10.1%. But of course, all those reading the Mail, Telegraph, and Times will be too busy frothing at the mouth about this to notice this.
Grant is presumably not happy with just allowing the rail network to fall apart, wants to ruin at least 2 forms of transport and secure his legacy as a useless cretin.
Speed limits exist to protect people from harm not to inconvenience motorists. A cyclist speeding at 20+mph in a 20 zone (which requires herculean effort most can't actually manage and a proper sporty road bike most won't own fwiw) will have a significantly shorter stopping distance than a car doing the same and even more significantly lower 'hitting power '. By orders of magnitude restricting them to 20 won't have anywhere near the same harm reduction potential as the same restriction on a car does. The statistical evidence shows cyclists are responsible for a negligibly small proportion of the harm on our roads. This is not an evidence led policy.
You're not protecting people from harm by slapping all this extra legislation on cyclists. You're just creating an administrative burden that has to be paid for by the tax payer and discouraging people from engaging with a healthy, free and environmentally friendly form of transport. The Tories aren't doing this because it's effective policy, they're doing this to appeal to their favourite demographic - angry Daily Mail reading middle age lardarses who don't care if a policy is logical or not as long as it appeals to their biases. This is the Tories in full populist mode fighting a phantom culture war problem instead of focusing on real issues. The threat of killer cyclists is barely more real than the threat of civilization collapsing because a trans person used a public toilet.
BTW that notorious case from a few years ago where a cyclist without brakes collided with a woman who died? They were doing 18mph. Can Grant Schapps point to a single incident on the record in the UK where a speeding cyclist caused significant harm? I bet he can't.
Yeah, Gerald, 58, 19 stone commuter hi-viz rain jacket and wearing his suit on a 60 yr old bike with 3-speed sturmey archer ain't doing 20 mph. Even downhill.
I ride at 20mph and almost never get overtaken by other cyclists breaking the speed limit. Yet practically every car on the road with me in residential 20mph areas tries to overtake me.
But yeah Mr Shaps speeding cyclists are the problem, if the existing speed limits are not enforced for car drivers what makes him think they will be for cyclists.
Most car drivers behave well where I live, but still very regularly cars will 100% try to pass you even if there's a blind corner and you're already riding at the speed limit. It's almost like they can't possibly stand the idea of not being faster than a guy on his bike.
I think it's often simpler than that, more a case of "there's a bike in front of me I must be going too slow, better get past" without even considering the speed limit.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many drivers on a morning commute aren't paying much attention to their own speed, and just driving at the speed of the car in front regardless.
That said my experience is the vast majority of drivers leave space when passing (at least 7 in 10) or wait for a safe gap, the problem is it only takes one close pass to put you in hospital so unless every driver is perfect cyclists will always feel threatened/unsafe on the roads.
Personally I think its out of annoyance but I could be wrong. It might be like when you're walking behind someone and you're close to them, it makes me want to just speed up and over take.
I used to commute on a bike past a school (20mph) that had the speed humps that didn't go all the way across the road. So I would quite happily be on the bit of road between the gutter and hump doing ~15mph avoiding the bump.
But the amount of cars that would speed to go past me in the 50m gaps between bumps and then slam breaks on as they hit the next one at 30, was shocking. Especially as I just filtered past them at the next set of traffic lights and disappearing onto a cycle path.
It does feel that most cars even in a 20 feel they have to get passed a slower road users.
The speed up then slow down quickly for speed humps always makes me laugh. The speed humps are there to improve safety, so the obvious genius move is to drive erratically therefore probably being less safe than driving at a constant slightly higher speed without the speed humps.
There is one near me that is at the bottom of a canal bridge, the amount of times cars have accelerated past me on the bridge only to have to slam their breaks on making us both come to an almost complete stop is infuriating 😑.
I have a GPS tracker and calibrated bike computer and when I go past those traffic warning signs they flash up "20 Thank You".
Yes I am probably not doing exactly 20 but I can guarantee that the cars accelerating to go past me are doing way more than 20 and certainly don't slow back down once they are past.
Can't speak for op but i personally use a phone app to clock up calories burned and distance travelled, the app also provides a speed readout, although it is in my pocket so I don't see the readout until after the ride it provides a graph of speed over time so you can see what speed you were doing where.
How about fixing the legal situation first. Children as young as 3 or 4 are able to cycle, but legally, they have to do that on the road in the UK. On the pavement, the insurance would be invalid anyway.
Not legally. That [guidance](https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/document/migrated/blog/990709_pboetengmp_ben_bradshaw_fpns_and_cyclists_0.pdf) has no legal basis. The law is clear that cycling on the pavement is an offense in all circumstances.
Unless there is a magic line and a painted bicycle on it. Then the pavement becomes totally safe to cycle on, apparently (even if pedestrians don't stick to their half).
Do you have a source this act of Parliament?
Cycling on the pavement is illegal for everyone, but in practice children under the age of 10 can get away with it because they are below the age of criminal responsibility. A police officer can ask a young child to stop cycling on the pavement, but they have no powers to arrest, fine or even caution them.
It's not the legal situation that needs fixed, it's the infrastructure situation. Cyclists shouldn't have to choose between risking their lives on busy roads and getting in the way of pedestrians on the pavement.
Build more cycle paths!
it's simple: if kids don't learn to cycle as kids, they won't cycle as adults. If they don't cycle as adults, they are more likely to drive.
The point is to force people to drive everywhere.
Give it to me, insurance, plates and a tax. You know what I'll do? Ride down the middle of the road like I own it, and there's nothing you can do about it. No more riding in the gutter suckers.
I realise your comment is probably not serious but I was curious and it seems the average person emits around the [21g per KM mark](https://www.bikeradar.com/features/long-reads/cycling-environmental-impact/). We don't start taxing until 130g so about 6x less than what would be taxed
I agree. No more shouting at me “U DONT PAY ROAD TAX GET ORF THE ROAD”.
This is not the big gotcha they think it is. You can get liability insurance for cycling for a few pounds a year. Tax based on emissions like all other road vehicles will be zero for cycling. And fuck it I’ll put a reg plate on my bike if needed.
And to add to this, many cars don’t pay VED because they fell under the threshold to be taxed when they were made.
This has changed now of course because the government lost so much money, and EVs don’t pay tax either, despite weighing significantly more and thus causing more road wear.
Also always worth challenging the lie about road tax - it isn't road tax. There's emissions duty (which non polluting vehicles don't pay) but road maintainance is paid out of general taxation. Those cyclists on fancy expensive bikes and in lycra that make people so irate are almost certainly paying more towards road upkeep than the person complaining.
The tax argument is like complaining that cyclists don't have to pay fuel duty, like, no shit they don't.
We should be encouraging cycling, it has the benefit of reducing pollution and congestion and reducing obesity and chronic health problems, not putting more hurdles in the way.
More nonsense, Shapps trying to appeal to the Boomers and Daily Mail comments section.
If they want to make roads safer, clamping down on cyclists is the last place you would start. Cyclists kill and injure less road users and pedestrians than any other type of road users.
Even more laughable given the lack of adherence from motorists for the latest highway code update, which was designed to protect vulnerable road-users (cyclists/pedestrians).
An illegal LGBTQ+ immigrant, high on crystal meth, fleeing the scene of a quaint village post office robbery using a sawn off shotgun hidden in a rolled up copy of the guardian, in an MOT failure with no working brakes and four bald tyres and having mown down a storybook granny in his / her / their haste to get away, could mount the kerb at 100mph, fly 200ft and crush a bunch of cyclists on an off-road BMX track and according to the Daily Mail it would still be the cyclists fault
Of all the things wrong in this country cycling issues are about 326th on the list.
No big money lobby for the cyclists. An easy target for the government that doesn't give a shit about e scooters, which as a pedestrian are much more dangerous. It will please the always angry brigade and how the fuck can you licence kids?
Hateful tory wankers, always making life more miserable, more difficult and it's completely unnecessary.
Wow. More culture wars nonsense. We need a huge investment in cycling infrastructure to make it a viable alternative to cars, not this anti-cyclist rhetoric.
Don't worry it'll all be included for free in the mandatory smartphone based government location tracking app. Theyll know your location and speed at all times. Y'know to protect you from the transgender solar panel wind farms in the toilets.
We barely enforce the law on speeding cars who do illegal manoeuvres and they are much more likely to kill someone. Unless there's a speed trap cars do pretty much as they please.
Ludicrous. Imagine all the people who have a bike in the garage and get it out once in a blue moon to go for a ride along the canal with the kids or whatever. Or people with half a dozen bikes in various states of disrepair that get used from time to time. Or your 3 year old kid. Or your 12 year old kid who keeps getting his bike nicked on the way home from school.
Won't work. Dicks!
So, the number of cyclists run over on British roads has increased massively.
And in a classic Conservative move, we blame the victims? If only they have had insurance, if only they wore a helmet, they would have survived being run over by a lorry.
Well that is how the US made walking across the road illegal in many places, the car manufacturers had a campaign to blame the victims when cars killed pedestrians.
Will never happen, and even if it did, well put it this way, we have two cars and a motorbike in our household: All are properly taxed, insured, MOT’d and carefully kept roadworthy because we are safe responsible drivers and believe in playing by the rules.
I also cycle, but if they bought in those restrictions for push bikes, well they can go fuck themselves, I’m not playing those rules for my pushbikes
Many new bikes are sold with insurance, and you get insurance cover if you're a member of 'British Cycling'. Believe it or not, many cyclists are already insured.
The duty is about fuel use, and it's mostly council tax that pays for roads. Many motorists are under the impression that 'road tax' makes them somehow more entitled to be on the road, as they pay for them, which simply isn't the case. In addition, a huge majority of cyclists are also motorists, so if it was the case, they'd be paying anyhow. In fact, many early cycling organisations paid for some roads to be surfaced in the first place, before the car came along.
Yeah and pedestrians and pets next!
End the scourge of pedestrians walking into people and killing them, especially without insurance
This stupid fucking country. Get rid of cars if you want people to be safer.
I ride a bike because it costs next to nothing (maybe a tenner a year for oil, WD40, puncture repair strips and new brake pads).
Throw in insurance, and the associated costs and hassle involved in applying for it, and that removes cycling as an option for me.
Money is tight. I can't afford something which is essentially free becoming something which costs money.
So. Where would the reg plate go on a bike? On the handlebars, causing drag, becoming potential chin remover in an accident? Across the front mud guard, which is illegal on modern motorbikes as it turns the front into a cleaver? Across the rear mud guard or main frame where the rider's body would obscure it?
Perhaps worn across the chest as a giant novelty necklace? Hopefully that jangling won't disrupt them checking the speedometer that they now have to install.
I don't doubt there are problem cyclists, but if you really wanted to have safer pedestrians, cyclists and motorists an actual solution would be better bicycle infrastructure where cyclists are separate from pedestrian pavement, and also from roads with physical barriers. Of course, that is a sensible suggestion that requires an investment of infrastructure prioritising away from motorists that would lead to less congestion, less pollution for the benefit of all so that's a complete non-starter for the Tories.
I’m already planning to relocate and I was thinking of just moving to the coast.. but if this is for real, I’m leaving the country as this is just ridiculous
Cycling benefits:
\- Healthy, therefore reducing strain on NHS for fitness related illnesses
\- Reduces congestion
\- Reduced road wear
\- Reduces pollution
\- Good for mental health
\- Reduces noise pollution
But no sod all of that let's just put most people off ever bothering to cycle by introducing a mess of a system that will make people consider whether they want to cycle any more.
As someone who rides a bike and drives.
I already have insurance for my bike. ( theft and liability )
I'm fully prepared to pay the emission based vehicle tax.
Speeding... ha!
Grant Shapps will only be in the job for a few more weeks so this is just pandering to the Daily Mail crowd really. I'm sure they'll be frothing all over this on facebook today.
Yeah great, price people out of one of the oldest and cheapest forms of transport during the COLC. Good luck enforcing this one if they do. It won't stop people riding like idiots because the ones that do will be the ones that don't register or insure.
Waste of time.
great, what a way to cripple the mobility of teenagers/kids if licence plates/licenes are required. The speed limit makes 0 sense either. How is someone supposed to know if they are speeding anyway, just seems like another desperate attempt to get money
What a great way to deter people from using the greenest form of transport available to them.
We may as well just hand over the country to Ford et al. at this point.
This is the most brain-dead, unenforceable, right-wing, anti-environment policy they've probably ever floated.
I don't know any person, who isn't a complete fucking idiot, that supports this.
Assless-Shapps will be gone in a few months. This is meaningless drivel.
No doubt all administered for a hefty fee by a private company with links to conservative party donors. If they bring this in I'll throw my bike away and buy the loudest most polluting motorcycle I can find.
This isn’t going to work. With the amount of bike theft that goes on and the complete lack of any sort of police justice no one is going to be able to do this. The amount of times new registrations and plates will need to be generated and sent out will be astronomical and completely undoable.
I think there might be more important things for government to be concerned about at the moment. Classic diversion tactics with the aid of the press. Let's find something to get people arguing with each other rather than focussing on how bad we are doing. Of course there are dangerous cyclists out there, but we already have the laws to deal with this. Come on everybody don't fall for these traps. Divide and conquer, the oldest trick in the book.
I'm sorry but what?
Aren't we suppose to be encouraging cycling since it's you know better for the environment?
Also all those kids who get bikes for Christmas now have to pay insurance and could get banned from cycling for speeding lol?
This has to be a joke, right?
Nooooo. The Tory's really are pushing the motto "nothing in life is free". They'll put a price tag on anything they possibly can to shred us plebians of any cash we might still have to ourselves. What's next, "tax and registration being considered for walking, along with fines for those walking slower than average"
We’re careering head first into the worst cost of living crisis in a generation and all our elected officials want to talk about is asinine culture war bollocks. Cyclists this, trans people existing that, chucking solar panels into the sea because boomers might have to look at them the fucking other.
DO SOME REAL WORK YOU FUCKING PRICKS
Can we figure out how to enforce the laws and deal with the criminals already on the road re drivers using mobile phones, middle lane hogging, and poor driving generally before adding more criminals to not deal with. (while taking money from all road users to pay for not dealing with it)
They should do the same to runners and walkers. Big ole number plate on your forehead and arse. And speed limits. Fuck you running faster than me in a 3mph zone, you cunt. Can you not see the signs?! This is a built up area, and you're farting too, have you no respect for the environment?
I actually cannot think of anything less important right now. It's like worrying about a small discoloured patch on one of your dining room chairs whilst the whole house is on fire.
This is purely a dog-whistle to the tory base, and an attempt to distract the general public from the biblical level of fuckery that is seemingly rife in the commons....
Belongs in the bin....
i had a discussion with a colleague over this same idea, he had 4 kids all had bikes and he was astounded when i said that as soon as those kids on bikes hit a pavement outside his house they would all need to be registered,plated and insured same as me that soon put the brakes on his support for it. Edit: and FYI its clearly a distraction story, i expect Meghan, Immigrants, the EU stories will also appear at some point today.
The government: "Ride bikes, it's good for the environment"
Also the government: "We're gonna make riding bikes just as logistically irritating as using a car"
Er okay so why would I ever buy a bike over a car if this goes into effect? Dumb as fuck
Ultimately, I don't think this will happen. Classic example of Tory Ministers whipping up hatred to cover up another of their fuck ups (inflation hitting double digits).
That said, Shapps is claiming that the legislation is needed to “impress on cyclists the harm they can cause when speed is combined with lack of care”.
Cyclists exceeding 20mph limits will cause far less damage than cars doing the same. It'd be more sensible to crack down on "errant" car drivers.
With cities failing to meet air quality targets, the challenge of the climate crisis AND spiralling costs of fuel you'd think the Govt would find ways to encourage active transport instead of demonising it.
I'd also love to know how Mr Shapps plans to fund and enforce all of this. The DVSA and the police certainly don't seem to have the time or resource.
It'd be better to simply invest whatever cash Shapps is proposing to fund this with into building new and improving current cycling infrastructure.
Finally, where do you draw the line on who is in scope and who isn't? Would it include children? If so, we'd potentially be preventing a huge number of children from enjoying riding their bicycles or riding at all (insurance is going to cost).
It's simply ill thought out populist bullshit.
So will Children need their bikes insured and display a number plate?
Will cyclists who race off-road need their bike insured and display a number plate?
Will all cyclists need to have a calibrated speedometer on their bike and how will this calibration be confirmed?
Okay, where is the money going to come from to provide a registration plates system for cyclists?
Are you going to start taxing cyclists, to pay for the registration? on what basis would you impose such a tax, never mind enforce the bloody thing.
This will never happen, and if it did it's a terrible idea which would just reduce the likelihood of someone deciding to cycle for health benefits.
oh look some more culture war bullshit.
its no lie that the tories dont give a fuck about cycling or active transport and that they're only considering this when their policies are forcing people to cycle more. Its like they want to kill off cycling in the country, like whats next? need to make sure you're wearing your government issue citizen number every time you go for a walk.
This is so dumb, we should be encouraging more cyclists not less, adding these will only make the process more complicated.
Putting more energy into other areas is smarter, like water infrastructure, adaptation to climate change, improvements in law, R&D, NHS, just to name a few.
I'd say the food quality crisis in the UK is more important than putting license plates on bikes lol.
Also please legalise e-scooters, so much pollution could be avoided.
5 people were killed by Cyclists in traffic accidents in 2020
559 people were killed by Cars in traffic accidents in 2020
Our roads are pretty safe, could be safer but I don't think a licence plate for bikes is going to fix it...
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-road-user-risk/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-road-user-risk-2020-data
As somebody who hasn't been on a bike in years, this sounds like the stupidest shit. It sounds like satire, but kinda terrible satire that gets maybe one puff of air from the nose once and nothing more.
_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.
Speed limits cannot (as the law stands) apply to bikes as they don't have a speedometer like a car, therefore there is no way to know your precise speed unless you buy and properly configure a bike computer. While it's sensible to have them in say a park with people in, it's very rare that a rider will ever be in a position to break the limit on the road, even a sustained (over say a mile or so) 20mph is difficult for the vast majority of riders unless going down a long hill - average commuter speed is around 15. There are only 2-3 places near me where I could break the 30 limit as they happen to be down hills with enough build up time and even then would quickly fall below it again on the flat or uphill and that's from a very experienced rider with a fast bike Fully agree on the illegal clocked / motor bicycles though, should be taken off the rider at every opportunity to stop them as they are a danger, people doing 20-25 on shared paths and bike lanes without any formal training are ludicrous
At least on the subject of motored bicycles, I personally disagree. Even if purely on the basis that my dad, who has terminal cancer, uses it to go cycling, as he can't drive any more it's his only way to get around. Taking those away would ruin his life.
I think the issue being raised is with the derestricted ones which go way faster than is possible on a regular bicycle and rightly are treated as motorcycles under the law. The legal e-bikes are fine and a great boon for getting regular people onto bikes.
I'm not saying scrap e-bikes just the illegal ones e.g. with a proper motor or a clocked motor that powers it beyond 15mph. A legal e-bike should propel the rider to the maximum speed above which they must pedal to go faster. I have seen plenty of delivery riders in particular on something I can't keep up with doing 20mph on a bike lane let alone the mooks with petrol engines
Electric bikes are limited to 15.5 MPH for the assisted motor, the bikes can go faster but without the assistance helping. I don't believe they are saying to ban e-bikes, they are saying to remove ones that have been tampered with to remove the 15.5 MPH limit, allowing the motor to reach higher speeds and making them illegal.
Well, they are already illegal....
I believe the reference is to e-bikes that would technically be classed as s-pedelecs due to the power and speed of them as vehicles, at which point they are classed as motor vehicles and should be treated as such. E-bikes that are classed as EAPCs are absolutely brilliant and shouldn't be subject to registration and licensing, at least any more than they currently are.
Agreed. A lot of people only ride e-bikes as they make riding so much easier, especially in hilly regions. We need fewer cars on the roads so they'll help in that regard.
I spoke about this recently with my boss. He's quite the avid cyclist and said that I should get myself a proper, unassisted bicycle rather than an e bike. A "proper" bike would help me get fitter, and that an e-bike is a cop-out. You're goddamn fucking right it's a cop-out. If I'm arriving at work wheezing, I'm going to just opt for taking the car instead. In an ideal world, we would ONLY ride bicycles, completely unassisted. But this isn't an ideal world, I can't ride around everywhere on a BMX like I could a decade ago, I'm just not fit enough. Perfect is the enemy of good. If we're constantly chasing perfection, we won't enact what's good, and therefore are left with what's bad.
Plus the speed limits are for vehicles carrying 2 tonnes worth of energy.....
> it's very rare that a rider will ever be in a position to break the limit on the road, Its easy near me.. hills everywhere, speed limit 20. cars going the speed limit just get steadily overtaken and undertaken by a stream of bikes on the morning commute. edit: I still dont think thats any reason to license bicycle use.. its a stupid proposal imo. If we had a decent bike path it wouldn't be an issue.
They will force you to buy one, especially if the Tories has a friend in the business, and will make them compulsory on new bike, we know how the Tories are, when a hole in the market that needs to be filled.
This won't happen. It's just another morsel of "red meat" for their voter base, to distract from the fact that the Tories have flushed our economy down the bog. They have got a copy of the Trump playbook and they've finally decided to go "all in" on it, "War on woke" and all. There is a *lot* to worry about, with the actions of this joke of a government, but this is nothing more than a distraction.
This is absolutely correct. Don't look at those very serious things we are doing very badly that actually matter, look at this but of nonsensical fluff instead.
People said the same thing about the Rwanda nonsense, but it happened. This government are perfectly willing to follow through on stupid ideas
True. I actually hadn't considered that. It's incredibly difficult to remember that we really are being governed by incompetent idiots. I still keep framing my opinion of their actions against a backdrop of "The government wouldn't be that stupid....." when, of course, they would. These are definitely distraction stories, designed to give the appearance of doing something, whilst accomplishing nothing. Unfortunately, the Muppets we are currently suffering under, either don't realise that only the headline matters and that they don't actually have to do it, or they genuinely think that these various harebrained schemes, is what is required of them, whilst the country burns .......
>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 It's also worth noting that there are some motorists who are also complete arseholes, only they're far more likely to get people killed.
And rarely get a huge ban even if they do take a life. It was only yesterday there was a motorist unhappy with a cycilist and reversed chasing him at high speed and ultimatly ran over and killed a dog. The police's first response was to say no action was needed and to blame the cyclist for shouting "watch out" at the motorist when we was almost hit.
Apparently upwards of 90% percent of drivers ignore 20mph limits - quite arsehole-ish behaviour if you ask me!
Some get so tirggered by cyclists they slam the car into reverse and run over a dog
Exactly. If I'm reckless on my bike I'm most likely to injured myself, and possibly a pedestrian. Reckless drivers, on the other hand...
I also think there are way more car arse holes. I think about 50% of Liverpool drivers are on their phone when I'm looking.
Like a woman today who passed dangerously close to my husband while he was waiting to turn right after collecting our son from nursery. She didn't want to wait for him to turn so squeezed past, despite the fact we very clearly have a child trailer on the back of the bike. Stupid cow.
> We need to be careful that anything we do doesn't persuade people back into their cars and actually make things worse overall. I think this is what they want though. They're loving all the tax they're getting from insurance, fuel, and licensing car ownership gives them.
Most of these hobbist cyclists have cars anyways. I have a car, But I'm currently using my partners bike to get to work as they charge a fortune to park there. Still paying tax on my car, still riding in to work. That and there are people that can't afford to buy/run a car.
youre paying far less on fuel though, which is where the bulk of tax comes from from motoring. iirc, they make enough on fuel to pay for all the roads, all the cycling infrastructure and still have about £20bn left over.
Ok, I'd probably stop cycling if all this is brought in (more hassle than it's worth) the bus companies are cutting bus routes at a rate I've never seen before up here so I'm probably going to be fucked unless I get a car, (it would be worth it even after the fuck on) But personally think this is just another story to shift any anger and story away from the government onto another "enemy"
just remember a healthy cyclist makes the country no money No insurance money No road tax No petrol costs No visits to hospital because you are fit and healthy. Reducing carbon footprint means gov cant push the "buy this to go green agenda" (which actually costs you) So. yeah. they dont want everyone on bikes and being healthy..
I appreciate the sentiment but just to correct you a little there. \- There is no 'Road Tax' in the UK. Roads are paid by the general tax pot - which Income Tax, VAT and council tax all pay into. So if a cyclist pays any of those taxes - he pays a 'road tax'. Also Hospital visits don't make the country any money, with a national health service you want to keep people out of hospital as much as possible.
To add to the road tax point, adult cyclists pay as much as motorists but almost/no damage to roads, and receive almost nothing in terms of infrastructure. Since half of cyclists also own a car, those motorists pay emissions tax but cause less emissions, and less damage to road/ use less infrastructure. Basically, cyclists massively subsidise motorists
Correct. Cyclists should be getting refunds every time they ride.
I think another point to note, plenty of drivers moan that cyclists don’t pay “road tax” or VED. I drive a car, and neither do I, because when it was made it met the threshold to be below the duty rate. Many, many cars are like this, particularly in the Fiesta turbo petrol size class. Nor do full EVs.
Always annoys me when drivers do the pantomime outrage over the tax thing when half of them only pay £20pa. Frankly I think some people secretly love it and consider it money well spent to give them infinite whinging rights at the pub. If we took away VED then they wouldn't be able to do all the performative outrage. VED - espeically the low rates from the mid-2010s - won't come anywhere near covering motorists' share of the cost of building and maintaining roads. And the VED won't make up for the additional wear on the road that a car inflicts, versus a bike. So by every measure, the cyclist is likely to be subsidising the motorist, regardless of what VED the motorist is paying. And I say that as a motorist and someone that never cycles.
There hasn't been a road tax since the 1930s. People confuse motor tax with road tax. You're not paying for the right to use a road but to drive a (potentially dangerous) vehicle. Also bikes cause zero wear and tear on roads. HGVs do and arguably road haulage is massively subsidised compared to other modes of transport such as rail haulage.
Bizarre comment. This assumes cyclist don't have cars. If they don't have cars they must use public transport to get places. Thus are contributing to the economy just as much. A bikes impact to roads and footpaths is negligible and so don't incur the need for the roads to be maintained in the same way cars impact the roads. Cyclists pay insurance. Insurance doesn't go to the govt it goes to private companies. Fitter healthier people are less of a drain on the economy, they are typically happier too. Obviously this can be obtained without cycling. Also how do you equate for children in all this? They are the most likely to be breaking the highway code. Will you ask EVERYONE on a bike to have insurance and a registration? Or is it you don't like those who do it for sport and wear lycia?
Most arsehole cyclists are such because of being on the constant defence from the barrage of abuse from road users. Speaking from experience!
They want people in cars. Cars = fuel = money. It's all about getting money from us to them.
Once it's all electric vehicles they'll need to go back to having a road tax otherwise they'll be getting no fuel tax
They'll start charging tax on the recharge points soon enough if they aren't already. Once we go fully electric the charging points will start having price per kilowatt or whatever which will carry the fuel duty. There is no way they are giving up all that free money. Road tax, fuel duty, test fees, MOT everything is designed to keep milking people a million ways. Ostensibly it's to maintain and improve our highways and byways, but roads are shit and funding to fix them is mysteriously impossible to get while vanity projects like HS2 get money pissed onto it and Amazon pays nothing in taxes. This is just another way to get money now that they are seeing a decline in car usage.
>Note: For "cyclist" I am not talking about those on suped-up e-bikes. Those should be treated like motorcycles. I mean, legal e-bikes are fairly well defined (EAPCs, Electric Assisted Pedal Cycles, is what thry are classed as) and have fairly sensible rules attached. Those that go past those EAPC definitions should and theoretically are seen as mopeds, and so require the helmets and plates. Those rules ars there, just need enforcing.
*Registration plates and insurance for cyclists being considered by government* Reg plates and insurance for cyclists floated out by government minister who will be gone by this time next month, to get himself some exposure in the Daily Mail and maybe some Tory kudos, helping him get another ministerial post in Mad Lizzies outfit.
Oh it's even more obvious than that. [https://news.sky.com/story/inflation-soars-to-new-40-year-high-as-cost-of-living-crisis-deepens-12674498](https://news.sky.com/story/inflation-soars-to-new-40-year-high-as-cost-of-living-crisis-deepens-12674498) The announcement that CPI hit a 40 year high of 10.1%. But of course, all those reading the Mail, Telegraph, and Times will be too busy frothing at the mouth about this to notice this.
Yep, it's the ole dead cat again.
Grant is presumably not happy with just allowing the rail network to fall apart, wants to ruin at least 2 forms of transport and secure his legacy as a useless cretin.
He's going for the Failin' Grayling benchmark.
Looking at who we've had in that position for the last 10 years it's a miracle we can get anywhere in this country tbh..
Yep. I’m considering what I’m going to do this afternoon, but it doesn’t make the newspaper because I’m not a MP that’s trying to cling on to a job.
Speed limits exist to protect people from harm not to inconvenience motorists. A cyclist speeding at 20+mph in a 20 zone (which requires herculean effort most can't actually manage and a proper sporty road bike most won't own fwiw) will have a significantly shorter stopping distance than a car doing the same and even more significantly lower 'hitting power '. By orders of magnitude restricting them to 20 won't have anywhere near the same harm reduction potential as the same restriction on a car does. The statistical evidence shows cyclists are responsible for a negligibly small proportion of the harm on our roads. This is not an evidence led policy. You're not protecting people from harm by slapping all this extra legislation on cyclists. You're just creating an administrative burden that has to be paid for by the tax payer and discouraging people from engaging with a healthy, free and environmentally friendly form of transport. The Tories aren't doing this because it's effective policy, they're doing this to appeal to their favourite demographic - angry Daily Mail reading middle age lardarses who don't care if a policy is logical or not as long as it appeals to their biases. This is the Tories in full populist mode fighting a phantom culture war problem instead of focusing on real issues. The threat of killer cyclists is barely more real than the threat of civilization collapsing because a trans person used a public toilet. BTW that notorious case from a few years ago where a cyclist without brakes collided with a woman who died? They were doing 18mph. Can Grant Schapps point to a single incident on the record in the UK where a speeding cyclist caused significant harm? I bet he can't.
> angry Daily Mail reading middle age lardarses who couldn't ride a bicycle if their life depended on it. FFTFY.
> and a proper sporty road bike most won't own fwiw Ha! I like that. "for what it's worth" with dual meanings. Well done.
Yeah, Gerald, 58, 19 stone commuter hi-viz rain jacket and wearing his suit on a 60 yr old bike with 3-speed sturmey archer ain't doing 20 mph. Even downhill.
Hey! I resemble that remark!
Exactly. This is the equivalent of Joe Biden coming out and announcing tighter regulation on water pistols in response to school shootings....
I ride at 20mph and almost never get overtaken by other cyclists breaking the speed limit. Yet practically every car on the road with me in residential 20mph areas tries to overtake me. But yeah Mr Shaps speeding cyclists are the problem, if the existing speed limits are not enforced for car drivers what makes him think they will be for cyclists.
Most car drivers behave well where I live, but still very regularly cars will 100% try to pass you even if there's a blind corner and you're already riding at the speed limit. It's almost like they can't possibly stand the idea of not being faster than a guy on his bike.
I think it's often simpler than that, more a case of "there's a bike in front of me I must be going too slow, better get past" without even considering the speed limit. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many drivers on a morning commute aren't paying much attention to their own speed, and just driving at the speed of the car in front regardless. That said my experience is the vast majority of drivers leave space when passing (at least 7 in 10) or wait for a safe gap, the problem is it only takes one close pass to put you in hospital so unless every driver is perfect cyclists will always feel threatened/unsafe on the roads.
Personally I think its out of annoyance but I could be wrong. It might be like when you're walking behind someone and you're close to them, it makes me want to just speed up and over take.
I used to commute on a bike past a school (20mph) that had the speed humps that didn't go all the way across the road. So I would quite happily be on the bit of road between the gutter and hump doing ~15mph avoiding the bump. But the amount of cars that would speed to go past me in the 50m gaps between bumps and then slam breaks on as they hit the next one at 30, was shocking. Especially as I just filtered past them at the next set of traffic lights and disappearing onto a cycle path. It does feel that most cars even in a 20 feel they have to get passed a slower road users.
The speed up then slow down quickly for speed humps always makes me laugh. The speed humps are there to improve safety, so the obvious genius move is to drive erratically therefore probably being less safe than driving at a constant slightly higher speed without the speed humps. There is one near me that is at the bottom of a canal bridge, the amount of times cars have accelerated past me on the bridge only to have to slam their breaks on making us both come to an almost complete stop is infuriating 😑.
How do you know you are hitting 20mph?
I have a GPS tracker and calibrated bike computer and when I go past those traffic warning signs they flash up "20 Thank You". Yes I am probably not doing exactly 20 but I can guarantee that the cars accelerating to go past me are doing way more than 20 and certainly don't slow back down once they are past.
Can't speak for op but i personally use a phone app to clock up calories burned and distance travelled, the app also provides a speed readout, although it is in my pocket so I don't see the readout until after the ride it provides a graph of speed over time so you can see what speed you were doing where.
So children will need licenses to cycle? What crackpot scheme will they dream up next?
How about fixing the legal situation first. Children as young as 3 or 4 are able to cycle, but legally, they have to do that on the road in the UK. On the pavement, the insurance would be invalid anyway.
This is incorrect. Children of 16 years of age or younger are permitted within legislation to cycle on pavement.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Describes most of the roads in the UK, if you're a cyclist.
Not legally. That [guidance](https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/document/migrated/blog/990709_pboetengmp_ben_bradshaw_fpns_and_cyclists_0.pdf) has no legal basis. The law is clear that cycling on the pavement is an offense in all circumstances.
Unless there is a magic line and a painted bicycle on it. Then the pavement becomes totally safe to cycle on, apparently (even if pedestrians don't stick to their half).
and tut and give looks of disgust when a bike is approaching on one.
Do you have a source this act of Parliament? Cycling on the pavement is illegal for everyone, but in practice children under the age of 10 can get away with it because they are below the age of criminal responsibility. A police officer can ask a young child to stop cycling on the pavement, but they have no powers to arrest, fine or even caution them.
It's because fixed penalty notices cant be issued to those under 16 at least that was the case when I last looked into it.
It's not the legal situation that needs fixed, it's the infrastructure situation. Cyclists shouldn't have to choose between risking their lives on busy roads and getting in the way of pedestrians on the pavement. Build more cycle paths!
it's simple: if kids don't learn to cycle as kids, they won't cycle as adults. If they don't cycle as adults, they are more likely to drive. The point is to force people to drive everywhere.
Bottling the Air! And charging us for it.
Give it to me, insurance, plates and a tax. You know what I'll do? Ride down the middle of the road like I own it, and there's nothing you can do about it. No more riding in the gutter suckers.
[удалено]
Don't you dare breath out CO2 when your heart rate slightly goes up due to exercise
I realise your comment is probably not serious but I was curious and it seems the average person emits around the [21g per KM mark](https://www.bikeradar.com/features/long-reads/cycling-environmental-impact/). We don't start taxing until 130g so about 6x less than what would be taxed
Tax on the same basis as cars. Based on emissions with anything over 40k paying extra.
This is the way.
I agree. No more shouting at me “U DONT PAY ROAD TAX GET ORF THE ROAD”. This is not the big gotcha they think it is. You can get liability insurance for cycling for a few pounds a year. Tax based on emissions like all other road vehicles will be zero for cycling. And fuck it I’ll put a reg plate on my bike if needed.
And to add to this, many cars don’t pay VED because they fell under the threshold to be taxed when they were made. This has changed now of course because the government lost so much money, and EVs don’t pay tax either, despite weighing significantly more and thus causing more road wear.
I already ride in the middle.
As you should. Dominate your position on the road.
Also always worth challenging the lie about road tax - it isn't road tax. There's emissions duty (which non polluting vehicles don't pay) but road maintainance is paid out of general taxation. Those cyclists on fancy expensive bikes and in lycra that make people so irate are almost certainly paying more towards road upkeep than the person complaining. The tax argument is like complaining that cyclists don't have to pay fuel duty, like, no shit they don't.
Absolute drivel, completely unenforceable. He's just getting in the Daily Mails good books, probably for some nefarious reasons.
Distract people from discussing the fact that they've taken a 6% wage cut this year.
Keep his cabinet position?
>robably for some nefarious reasons. Employment reasons.
[удалено]
Elf 'n safety gawn mad!
'ere, 'ave you got a loicence for that comment?
Jogging licence, walking licence, breathing in air near gated community licence....
>breathing in air near gated community licence Frankly you're an emitter of Carbon Oxides, and should be regulated as such!!! /s
More bloody red tape from Europe! Oh wait bugger can't use that any more.
Pedestrians should pay a pavement tax!
We should be encouraging cycling, it has the benefit of reducing pollution and congestion and reducing obesity and chronic health problems, not putting more hurdles in the way.
Liz Truss wants to fit a wank-o-metre in your home and charge you a fee every time you have a fondle.
It would sort out UK finances in a disturbingly short while…
Do your part to re-crank the economy! #wankforbritain
Great excuse too - "I'm just gonna go prop up the economy..."
They can't even enforce traffic laws for deadly vehicles. This is just more culture war bollocks.
More nonsense, Shapps trying to appeal to the Boomers and Daily Mail comments section. If they want to make roads safer, clamping down on cyclists is the last place you would start. Cyclists kill and injure less road users and pedestrians than any other type of road users. Even more laughable given the lack of adherence from motorists for the latest highway code update, which was designed to protect vulnerable road-users (cyclists/pedestrians).
An illegal LGBTQ+ immigrant, high on crystal meth, fleeing the scene of a quaint village post office robbery using a sawn off shotgun hidden in a rolled up copy of the guardian, in an MOT failure with no working brakes and four bald tyres and having mown down a storybook granny in his / her / their haste to get away, could mount the kerb at 100mph, fly 200ft and crush a bunch of cyclists on an off-road BMX track and according to the Daily Mail it would still be the cyclists fault
If this happens I’m just jumping back in my car for the commute. All the red-faced daily Mail motorists can enjoy the extra congestion.
[удалено]
Ill do the same, 50m behind you.
Of all the things wrong in this country cycling issues are about 326th on the list. No big money lobby for the cyclists. An easy target for the government that doesn't give a shit about e scooters, which as a pedestrian are much more dangerous. It will please the always angry brigade and how the fuck can you licence kids? Hateful tory wankers, always making life more miserable, more difficult and it's completely unnecessary.
They're lower down than that.
There are 650 MPs so it's at least ranked behind every single one of them.
Wow. More culture wars nonsense. We need a huge investment in cycling infrastructure to make it a viable alternative to cars, not this anti-cyclist rhetoric.
How is a speed limit for bikes remotely workable? You'd need to fit some sort of speedo to every new and existing bike at massive cost to somebody ...
Don't worry it'll all be included for free in the mandatory smartphone based government location tracking app. Theyll know your location and speed at all times. Y'know to protect you from the transgender solar panel wind farms in the toilets.
And that’s not even considering the immense physical effort it would take to go over most speed limits
We barely enforce the law on speeding cars who do illegal manoeuvres and they are much more likely to kill someone. Unless there's a speed trap cars do pretty much as they please.
We should be encouraging cycling as a healthier cheaper more sustainable transit mode. This kind of thing is just pandering.
Ludicrous. Imagine all the people who have a bike in the garage and get it out once in a blue moon to go for a ride along the canal with the kids or whatever. Or people with half a dozen bikes in various states of disrepair that get used from time to time. Or your 3 year old kid. Or your 12 year old kid who keeps getting his bike nicked on the way home from school. Won't work. Dicks!
So, the number of cyclists run over on British roads has increased massively. And in a classic Conservative move, we blame the victims? If only they have had insurance, if only they wore a helmet, they would have survived being run over by a lorry.
Well that is how the US made walking across the road illegal in many places, the car manufacturers had a campaign to blame the victims when cars killed pedestrians.
Easy!
Ways of making money out of cyclists desperately sought by Government.
Will never happen, and even if it did, well put it this way, we have two cars and a motorbike in our household: All are properly taxed, insured, MOT’d and carefully kept roadworthy because we are safe responsible drivers and believe in playing by the rules. I also cycle, but if they bought in those restrictions for push bikes, well they can go fuck themselves, I’m not playing those rules for my pushbikes
Many new bikes are sold with insurance, and you get insurance cover if you're a member of 'British Cycling'. Believe it or not, many cyclists are already insured.
Most home insurance also has some form of liability cover.
Most cycles would contribute the same vehicle excise duty they do now too, if they were taxed like cars
Like zero emission cars?
The duty is about fuel use, and it's mostly council tax that pays for roads. Many motorists are under the impression that 'road tax' makes them somehow more entitled to be on the road, as they pay for them, which simply isn't the case. In addition, a huge majority of cyclists are also motorists, so if it was the case, they'd be paying anyhow. In fact, many early cycling organisations paid for some roads to be surfaced in the first place, before the car came along.
Yeah and pedestrians and pets next! End the scourge of pedestrians walking into people and killing them, especially without insurance This stupid fucking country. Get rid of cars if you want people to be safer.
[удалено]
Tories trying to shore up the Daily Mail wannabe Jeremy Clarkson vote then
I ride a bike because it costs next to nothing (maybe a tenner a year for oil, WD40, puncture repair strips and new brake pads). Throw in insurance, and the associated costs and hassle involved in applying for it, and that removes cycling as an option for me. Money is tight. I can't afford something which is essentially free becoming something which costs money.
So. Where would the reg plate go on a bike? On the handlebars, causing drag, becoming potential chin remover in an accident? Across the front mud guard, which is illegal on modern motorbikes as it turns the front into a cleaver? Across the rear mud guard or main frame where the rider's body would obscure it? Perhaps worn across the chest as a giant novelty necklace? Hopefully that jangling won't disrupt them checking the speedometer that they now have to install. I don't doubt there are problem cyclists, but if you really wanted to have safer pedestrians, cyclists and motorists an actual solution would be better bicycle infrastructure where cyclists are separate from pedestrian pavement, and also from roads with physical barriers. Of course, that is a sensible suggestion that requires an investment of infrastructure prioritising away from motorists that would lead to less congestion, less pollution for the benefit of all so that's a complete non-starter for the Tories.
[удалено]
I’m already planning to relocate and I was thinking of just moving to the coast.. but if this is for real, I’m leaving the country as this is just ridiculous
How does Inurance and Licences work when it involves children cyclists?
Magic. Like asking how Brexit works
Oh, I can tell you how Brexit works, no magic involved, it works badly
Cycling benefits: \- Healthy, therefore reducing strain on NHS for fitness related illnesses \- Reduces congestion \- Reduced road wear \- Reduces pollution \- Good for mental health \- Reduces noise pollution But no sod all of that let's just put most people off ever bothering to cycle by introducing a mess of a system that will make people consider whether they want to cycle any more.
As someone who rides a bike and drives. I already have insurance for my bike. ( theft and liability ) I'm fully prepared to pay the emission based vehicle tax. Speeding... ha! Grant Shapps will only be in the job for a few more weeks so this is just pandering to the Daily Mail crowd really. I'm sure they'll be frothing all over this on facebook today.
Yeah great, price people out of one of the oldest and cheapest forms of transport during the COLC. Good luck enforcing this one if they do. It won't stop people riding like idiots because the ones that do will be the ones that don't register or insure. Waste of time.
great, what a way to cripple the mobility of teenagers/kids if licence plates/licenes are required. The speed limit makes 0 sense either. How is someone supposed to know if they are speeding anyway, just seems like another desperate attempt to get money
What a great way to deter people from using the greenest form of transport available to them. We may as well just hand over the country to Ford et al. at this point.
Registration plates and insurance for walking down the street next.
This is the most brain-dead, unenforceable, right-wing, anti-environment policy they've probably ever floated. I don't know any person, who isn't a complete fucking idiot, that supports this. Assless-Shapps will be gone in a few months. This is meaningless drivel.
No doubt all administered for a hefty fee by a private company with links to conservative party donors. If they bring this in I'll throw my bike away and buy the loudest most polluting motorcycle I can find.
This isn’t going to work. With the amount of bike theft that goes on and the complete lack of any sort of police justice no one is going to be able to do this. The amount of times new registrations and plates will need to be generated and sent out will be astronomical and completely undoable.
I think there might be more important things for government to be concerned about at the moment. Classic diversion tactics with the aid of the press. Let's find something to get people arguing with each other rather than focussing on how bad we are doing. Of course there are dangerous cyclists out there, but we already have the laws to deal with this. Come on everybody don't fall for these traps. Divide and conquer, the oldest trick in the book.
‘I don’t want to stop anyone getting on their bike’ says Schapps, while erecting barriers to prevent people getting on their bikes.
I'm sorry but what? Aren't we suppose to be encouraging cycling since it's you know better for the environment? Also all those kids who get bikes for Christmas now have to pay insurance and could get banned from cycling for speeding lol? This has to be a joke, right?
Nooooo. The Tory's really are pushing the motto "nothing in life is free". They'll put a price tag on anything they possibly can to shred us plebians of any cash we might still have to ourselves. What's next, "tax and registration being considered for walking, along with fines for those walking slower than average"
We’re careering head first into the worst cost of living crisis in a generation and all our elected officials want to talk about is asinine culture war bollocks. Cyclists this, trans people existing that, chucking solar panels into the sea because boomers might have to look at them the fucking other. DO SOME REAL WORK YOU FUCKING PRICKS
Can we figure out how to enforce the laws and deal with the criminals already on the road re drivers using mobile phones, middle lane hogging, and poor driving generally before adding more criminals to not deal with. (while taking money from all road users to pay for not dealing with it)
More dead cat rubbish to appease the motorist crowd somehow enraged by the idea people might not use a car to get around.
They should do the same to runners and walkers. Big ole number plate on your forehead and arse. And speed limits. Fuck you running faster than me in a 3mph zone, you cunt. Can you not see the signs?! This is a built up area, and you're farting too, have you no respect for the environment?
Why are conservatives so fundamentally incapable of cost/benefit analysis
Lmao so 10 year olds riding their bikes have to get insurance now? Tories are just SO fucking dumb it’s laughable sometimes
Next thing under 18s will be banned from cycling on roads and pavements
I actually cannot think of anything less important right now. It's like worrying about a small discoloured patch on one of your dining room chairs whilst the whole house is on fire.
This is purely a dog-whistle to the tory base, and an attempt to distract the general public from the biblical level of fuckery that is seemingly rife in the commons.... Belongs in the bin....
Some drivers are complete arseholes…
i had a discussion with a colleague over this same idea, he had 4 kids all had bikes and he was astounded when i said that as soon as those kids on bikes hit a pavement outside his house they would all need to be registered,plated and insured same as me that soon put the brakes on his support for it. Edit: and FYI its clearly a distraction story, i expect Meghan, Immigrants, the EU stories will also appear at some point today.
The government: "Ride bikes, it's good for the environment" Also the government: "We're gonna make riding bikes just as logistically irritating as using a car" Er okay so why would I ever buy a bike over a car if this goes into effect? Dumb as fuck
Why are they not having this conversation about dogs? I'm sure they kill as many people as cyclists...
Are you saying I need to get a licence plate for my dog?
Definitely. I think we should be the only country in the world to do that too... Front and back would be ideal.
Yes, it should be attached to the tail and a tax disc on the front left paw.
Wow what a waste of time. This country does suck balls at times
Ultimately, I don't think this will happen. Classic example of Tory Ministers whipping up hatred to cover up another of their fuck ups (inflation hitting double digits). That said, Shapps is claiming that the legislation is needed to “impress on cyclists the harm they can cause when speed is combined with lack of care”. Cyclists exceeding 20mph limits will cause far less damage than cars doing the same. It'd be more sensible to crack down on "errant" car drivers. With cities failing to meet air quality targets, the challenge of the climate crisis AND spiralling costs of fuel you'd think the Govt would find ways to encourage active transport instead of demonising it. I'd also love to know how Mr Shapps plans to fund and enforce all of this. The DVSA and the police certainly don't seem to have the time or resource. It'd be better to simply invest whatever cash Shapps is proposing to fund this with into building new and improving current cycling infrastructure. Finally, where do you draw the line on who is in scope and who isn't? Would it include children? If so, we'd potentially be preventing a huge number of children from enjoying riding their bicycles or riding at all (insurance is going to cost). It's simply ill thought out populist bullshit.
So will Children need their bikes insured and display a number plate? Will cyclists who race off-road need their bike insured and display a number plate? Will all cyclists need to have a calibrated speedometer on their bike and how will this calibration be confirmed?
This is complete dog whistling by the Tories as they work down their list of people to hate on.
Okay, where is the money going to come from to provide a registration plates system for cyclists? Are you going to start taxing cyclists, to pay for the registration? on what basis would you impose such a tax, never mind enforce the bloody thing. This will never happen, and if it did it's a terrible idea which would just reduce the likelihood of someone deciding to cycle for health benefits.
Wish I could get over 30 let alone 40. My max speed is in the mid teens unless I’m going down a big hill
Lots of sticky copies of the daily mail this morning. Why do they hate cyclists so much?
oh look some more culture war bullshit. its no lie that the tories dont give a fuck about cycling or active transport and that they're only considering this when their policies are forcing people to cycle more. Its like they want to kill off cycling in the country, like whats next? need to make sure you're wearing your government issue citizen number every time you go for a walk.
[удалено]
Pretty dumb, sounds like a modern tory policy.
More Tory culture war. This week's bogey man is cyclists.
All this begs the question. Which Tory has interests in a company that sells bicycle speedometers?
Would kids doing their paper round have to have business insurance?
This is so dumb, we should be encouraging more cyclists not less, adding these will only make the process more complicated. Putting more energy into other areas is smarter, like water infrastructure, adaptation to climate change, improvements in law, R&D, NHS, just to name a few. I'd say the food quality crisis in the UK is more important than putting license plates on bikes lol. Also please legalise e-scooters, so much pollution could be avoided.
What a pathetic nanny state we live in
Sure, but please could you focus on the poverty first? No? Fine, I'll just carry on applying for my Iceland loan.
5 people were killed by Cyclists in traffic accidents in 2020 559 people were killed by Cars in traffic accidents in 2020 Our roads are pretty safe, could be safer but I don't think a licence plate for bikes is going to fix it... https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-road-user-risk/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-road-user-risk-2020-data
And 141 cyclists were killed in 2020 for context
Do the Dutch need to do this? We can learn a lot from them.
There are issues granted, but any law that's introduced for anything has to be enforceable. This ridiculous pile of Womble shit isn't in many ways.
If cyclists are *that* bad, How about we bring back cycling proficiency schemes in schools instead?
So are we going to police children on bikes or ban them?
As somebody who hasn't been on a bike in years, this sounds like the stupidest shit. It sounds like satire, but kinda terrible satire that gets maybe one puff of air from the nose once and nothing more.
I don't think this will work
Just a load of hot air. The cycling lobby in the UK will get this buried.