Right, let's point out the first and biggest obvious flaw in the idea, and see if you even bother with a response after that.
1. There's no compulsory form of ID that must be owned or carried in this country, for the population generally.
2. A form of compulsory ID does however apply to motorists.
3. Effective enforcement and prosecution of road traffic law is largely only possible due to the fact that motorists must have the compulsory ID.

So, even if bikes were registered, how would you check that the person on the bike is the person it's registered to? You couldn't, without also bringing in compulsory IDs for everyone in the country, or compulsory registration of cyclists as well as their bikes.

And I can guess the response right now, "but forget about the logistical problems, bla bla bla".

I get it, your stance is it is a logistical nightmare and therefore should not be implemented, you want to focus only on the logistics, I've taken it as far as I want it to go in this regard, end of discussion. I'll move on if that's okay with you.

Discouraged by cost and bureaucracy!

The article you refer to is relatively rare incident thank goodness, but if you look at accidents on pavements you will find most are caused by vehicles and the severity of those accidents is considerably greater than the odd cycle collision.

Better policing is the answer and the panacea, segregated lanes for cyclists, and nirvana would be ban vehicles from town and city centres.

Health, the enviroment, greater local financial benefits are just some huge reason why cycling should be prioritized over vehicular infrastructure :thumb:

Discouraged by cost and bureaucracy? Doesn't stop people buying cars despite all the costs, laws, form filling, mandatory testing etc etc!!

Better still would be to include bicycles too in town and city centres, safer for pedestrians.

Vehicles are lethal,even when driven slowly, there should be legislation for safety and emissions. People on the whole are lazy fookers who would drive a mile than walk or cycle.

Flaw in thought, travelling to local towns or around cities by walking is slow, bicycles are perfect for speed and safety- see Amsterdam and or any Scandinavian city towns, well pretty much northern Europe for cycle friendly infrastructure

I am off to fish and chip shop with extended family in next town, about 9 miles, I could drive in my huge pickup, but I will cycle on back roads takes 15mins longer than going by car once parking taking into consideration :D

What do you mean?!! There are a huge amount of legislation for vehicle safety and emissions!! However there are no legislation on the safety or road worthiness of bicycles, no requirement for even basic safety features like rear facing having mirrors, helmets, tyre condition, speed limits or even basic training to ride on roads full of lethal vehicles, etc. Why should cyclists have special dispensation to use the roads given those conditions, especially when it's their safety and wellbeing is at stake. I see inexperienced people literally risk their lives riding Boris bikes through London streets, you may as well rollerblade or skateboard on the roads. Now imagine rollerbladers skating two abreast holding primary position whilst holding up a peloton of cyclists behind....:lol1:

See my bold comments

This is how it should be done!!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SZP...ature=youtu.be



:lol1:

Cycling proficiency isn't mandatory training, is there any legal requirement to even know the highway code to cycle on the road? No there isn't, none of what you say is mandatory which is why there is nothing to stop cyclists, experiened and inexpernced, from endangering themselves or others. But if you get injured, it's okay because you say it's goverened by the level of personal risk one is willing take.

As Andy already pointed out, 1.5 tons of car is going to cause serious injury in a collision with a pedestrian (or cyclist) even at low speed, the same definitely cannot be said about a bicycle. It's the rare exception where a human-against-car collision doesn't cause serious injury, but the rare exception where a human-against-bicycle does, fact!

With regards to proficiency, I wasn't going to bother since you said several posts ago that you were supposedly not interested in having this debate any more, but if you take that line to its ultimate logical conclusion, you will inevitably end up with the situation where under 16s are simply banned outright from cycling on the roads, unless supervised by at least one adult. You can try and wriggle around that one all you like, but that's where it would end, fact!

Brilliant

:thumb:

Isn't teacher going to be cross that you keep wandering out of class without permission? :)

http://road.cc/content/news/160103-n...ycling-capital

:luxhello::luxhello::luxhello:

Come on London, you can do it :thumb:

You’re arguing a point that nobody's made. No one is disputing this, you're stating the bleeding obvious!

I never said I wasn't interesting in having a debate, I'm all for open debate. You on the other hand kept on banging on about the logistics of registration and refused to go any further than that and that was end of the discussion with you on that point. Moving on to proficiency, no you wouldn't end up in a situation where under 16 are banned on the road. But I presume you are fine with under 16's banned from riding mopeds or mini-motos on public roads and upon reaching the minimum age have to take a test and wear safety equipment to use the roads?

I did my cycling proficiency at primary school. So no, it doesn't reach your ultimate logical conclusion, nor is what you say is fact since you have no evidence to show this would be the case! Also since there is no mandatory proficiency standard or any need to ensure one is even proficient to use the roads, I take it you are fine in having children use any of UK's roads without supervision, despite vehicles being lethal even at low speeds and leave it down to what risks one is willing to take when using the roads? Cycling proficiency isn't just for cyclists, it is also for all other road users so that everyone knows one has reached a certain standard where they are proficient in an environment that is inherently dangerous. As it stands, anyone can walk into a shop, buy a bike for themselves or for children and start riding the roads without being educated on how lethal roads can be or needing to know the basics of the Highway Code. Even the most experienced riders still have accidents and flout the law at the risk of injury to themselves and to others. If a set level of standard alone reduces the chances of accidents, then surely that is a good thing. It's not like it prevents you from using and enjoying your bike.

Jonc, you're banging on about something that doesn't need to be implemented, what needs to be implemented is in post #73 just watch the two videos, its inspiring to see what London could look like with a little effort.

Just look what has happened this morning, 200 miles of traffic jams, that is not sustainable or good on any level.

Boris bikes are being used at maximum capacity others taking to their own bikes, more people walking. It just shows Londoners would quickly adapt to traffic free streets in a moment if vehicles were disadvantaged.


Wouldn't you want to be able to walk and cycle around in a city without pollution and noise?

Well I'd argue that a level of proficiency is still needed until what you posted in #73 is implemented. It's good that the video shows children being trained on how to ride of the roads safely in Cambridge, that's great. Why then do you say it's not needed? Clearly other cyclist feel it's needed. Also today is not your typical day in London though is it!

The education is very informal, no regulations, just common sense, like UK proficiency test. Did you see, there was hardly anybody wearing helmets and virtually everyone, normal clothes. The actual etiquette of the riding was gentle with each rider giving the other space. This is the same mentality for when people walk in crowded areas- self preservation.

The example is there for London to follow, it could be such a great city with no traffic. Did you see the free ride last Saturday around London? 60,000 riders having a great time. :thumb:

Your cycling proficiency wasn't a legally enforceable compulsory test performed to a regulated national standard. The minute anyone tried to introduce an equivalent that was, you'd soon find that the people trying to draw up the plans for it would decide it's not realistic to try and do so for children below a certain age. Likewise with registration, it would be impossible to expect anyone who isn't at least close to adult age to assume responsibility for ensuring their paperwork is all in order. QED, your scheme would never get out of the starting blocks.

Yes it is informal, but some education is better than no education. The video is obviously pro cycling, but not everyone rides "gently".

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cycl...ail/story.html
http://road.cc/content/news/134319-c...all-road-users

All I'm suggesting is something is done to educate would be riders to encourage safer riding and enhance road safety for cyclists. I wished the Government's Bikability training was introduced in all schools even as an after school session. Unfortunately this scheme in not available in my area, certainly not within riding distance. So a Government backed scheme already exists and is available in certain areas. I don't see why cyclists here are so against the idea, esspecially if it improves road safety and awareness.

That's my arguement!! :facepalm: I did my proficiency test back in the late seventies and now there is a much better scheme. Bikeability exists and there are 3 levels for trainees, so as you can see it is already out of the starting box. I can't see why you are against such a scheme.

It is proficiency test dressed up. There is no accountability if you don't pass it. You won't be banned from the road. Common sense obviously to teach children the basic principles of safe riding. That is all that is needed to ride. Safety is a two way street and drivers should know how to behave around cyclists

When you can demonstrate that you understand the difference between commenting on whether a scheme is good or not, and commenting on whether it's practical or not to make that scheme legally compulsory nationwide, I will come back and accept your apology for the face-palm. Until then, have a nice evening.

The only cretin here is you. In fact, you're a top class bellend. Now go walk off a cliff. There's a good lass


:thumb:

Mark, trying to ram your point down my throat is not debating. In fact you've not really added anything to this debate going only so far as how everything is a logistical nightmare and therefore nothing will happen game over. As for an apology, for what, since I already argued that point in post #69, your posts to me have been nothing but condecending and patronising, you dish it out but can't take any back and throw your toys out of the pram, get over yourself! :Whatever_

Nowhere have I said you'd be banned from the road until you've passed a test. Whether it is the old proficiency test dressed up or not it is a scheme that will impart knowledge and awareness on how to use the roads, which goes further than just common sense and basic principles. As you say, it is a two way street and cyclists should also know how to behave around vehicles.

I live in a very rural area. Cycling and horse riding are commonplace, even quite a few cycle races in and around my village. I grew up in another village at a time when the law changed to not being allowed to ride on the pavement, so the local copper was quite hot on it, which meant riding on the A24 as a kid before the village was bypassed, and even remember a coach passing me and brushing my elbow on one occasion. As such I am pretty tolerant to cyclists, and horse riders. Never pass when it is not safe to do so, and always give as much room as possible.

However, some cyclists do not help themselves. A couple of months back I had to pick my son up from his friends, near Dorking. It was a sunny Sunday afternoon, and we were in the area a little earlier than scheduled, so decided to take a little bimble up to Box Hill to enjoy the view. The road up to it was part of the 2012 Olympic course, and it is called zig zag lane, which might give you some clue as to the nature of the road. Two cars can pass on most parts of it, but on that day it was rammed with cyclists, some out of control going around the tight bends, and most hurtling down the road when coming downhill approaching me as if they owned the road, and looking at the cars trying to drive on the road as if they shouldn't be on it at all.
At the top, where the road opens up to proper two way carriageway, cyclists travelling in groups, three abreast (read the Highway Code, not allowed) making it difficult to pass them even when completely on the opposite side of the road, cars getting gesticulated at when they did so, and once on the major A25, groups with no consideration to other road users. In fact, there was a transit van a few cars in front of me, stuck behind one such group, that eventually managed to get passed only for us all to have to stop up the road at a temporary set of lights. When the lights turned green the van moved off, only for the cyclists to quite dangerously squeeze passed the underside of the van causing it to brake. Clearly irked, when the van went passed the cyclists he didn't make that much effort to swerve around them and went passed quite close to them (at low speed) cue the gesticulations from the cyclists who can clearly do no wrong.

As such my toleration towards cyclists has dwindled some what, although not in any way for me to cause a danger to them, even if I have just ten minutes ago come across three cyclists on the way up to my house riding three abreast, leaving me only just enough room to pass without putting my wheels on the grass verge on the opposite side of the carriageway.

That said it does amuse me, the sight of some of the middle aged tw@ts riding around on pieces of crap, panting like fook as they ride up a steep incline, pushing themselves to an early coronary, all the time dressed from head to toe in full team sky Lycra, no doubt having shaved their legs so they can go 0.00000001mph faster when they finally make it to the top of that hill.
Maybe I should get myself a full replica subaru wrc jumpsuit to wear next time I go for a ride in the car around Box Hill.

:lol1:

:lol1::lol1:

LOL :lol1:

Wish I'd thought of that video now!