Cyclists could be forced to get number plates and insurance under Highway Code changes (in the UK)

Nerfherder

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
29,703
So, the day labourer, the gardener at the complex up the road, and so on. You gonna foot the bill for all this bullshit?
So who is going to fit the bill for when he falls in front of a car ?

Yes, I think all cars should have insurance as well. We have the RAF for cars and it should cover bicycles as well.
 

Kieppie

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
9,230
Why not? A plate affixed to the saddle behind the lycra covered asre and the same size will be highly visible. About the same size as a square motorcycle plate. No drag involved at all as the asre creates the drag.

Because they can't make a fast anonymous getaway which the cyclist depends on with the helmet and mirror shades helping the disguise.
Won't work except for those old fashioned upright type bicycles. Seat designs differ, meaning you can't have standardised attachment to the seat itself. So you'll have to attach it to the post and extent it to the back of the seat.
The biggest problem however is that you typically change seat position quite often, even hovering behind the seat, unless it's just a boring commute to work.

So again, a bib will address this much better and over multiple scenarios, if you really want to go the no anonymity route. Personally I find people that litter cigarette butts more troublesome and more common than cyclist
 

Kieppie

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
9,230
A smoker has never killed or seriously injured a person with their cigarette butt...
Second hand smoke disagrees with you... A discarded butt is just a telltale way to highlight those that don't care about those around them, much like chucking garbage out a car's window.

As for the killing/injury part as it relates to cycling, this is negligible compared to other transportation means.

Anyway even Grant Shapps, that instigated this whole brouhaha, flipflopped on this issue.

 
Last edited:

Kieppie

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
9,230
How much smoke comes off a cigarette butt?
You do realise a butt, specifically a discarded one on the street, implies smoke was expelled. If any of that was inhaled then it would be second hand smoke.
Anyway, the idea of licenses for bicycles is stupid no matter which way you slice it. Luckily the policy makers appear to know this. See the article in my post.
 

Dave

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
76,500
You do realise a butt, specifically a discarded one on the street, implies smoke was expelled. If any of that was inhaled then it would be second hand smoke.
Anyway, the idea of licenses for bicycles is stupid no matter which way you slice it. Luckily the policy makers appear to know this. See the article in my post.

You didn't make a complaint about cigarettes or smoking, you complained about discarded butts, which is what I replied to.
 

Kieppie

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
9,230
You didn't make a complaint about cigarettes or smoking, you complained about discarded butts, which is what I replied to.
You jumped to the injury part, I was replying to a post which highlighted the use of licenses to combat "miscreants". I consider those who haphazardly discard their butts as "miscreants" as well, hence the comparison. It's almost like a miniaturised shopping trolley test.
Also, butts don't magically appear, as I mentioned, so the injury aspect remains valid if in close proximity to others.
 

nivek

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
10,271
Its about time. They irritate me with their constant moaning.

Do you see me driving a BMW on the OR Tambo 21R Runway and complaining that the planes aren't giving us enough freedom and the rules favor Boeing and Airbus too much?!
What a weird metaphor.
But anyhow, how did you land yourself in such a position that you're so bothered by the constant moaning of UK cyclists?
 

The Voice

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
15,695
You do realise a butt, specifically a discarded one on the street, implies smoke was expelled. If any of that was inhaled then it would be second hand smoke.
Anyway, the idea of licenses for bicycles is stupid no matter which way you slice it. Luckily the policy makers appear to know this. See the article in my post.

Not sure complaining about second hand cigarette smoke from a few cigarettes is going to get you very far here when the fumes pumped out by the diesel and petrol engines of the cars that they were smoked in (and the butts were thrown out of) actually have a much greater impact on human health and the environment over the short and long term.
 

Dave

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
76,500
You jumped to the injury part, I was replying to a post which highlighted the use of licenses to combat "miscreants". I consider those who haphazardly discard their butts as "miscreants" as well, hence the comparison. It's almost like a miniaturised shopping trolley test.
Also, butts don't magically appear, as I mentioned, so the injury aspect remains valid if in close proximity to others.

I'm sure you know what the argument is that you're making there.
 

Kieppie

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
9,230
Not sure complaining about second hand cigarette smoke from a few cigarettes is going to get you very far here when the fumes pumped out by the diesel and petrol engines of the cars that they were smoked in (and the butts were thrown out of) actually have a much greater impact on human health and the environment over the short and long term.
I was referring more to pedestrians haphazardly chucking them. For cars I mentioned garbage being thrown out the windows.

Since you mention the environment, as per the article I linked, adding licensing for bicycles will result in a decrease in cycling and hence an increase in fossil fuel usage.
Simultaneously straining already stretched policing to enforce said licensing, which amount to a negligible casualties compared to regular motoring.
 

Kieppie

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
9,230
I'm sure you know what the argument is that you're making there.
I thought the overarching conversation was quite clear.
The main purpose was to show how short sighted trying to license bicycles actually is.

I'll repost the article incase someone missed it. It's relevant since it was Grant Shapps that precipitated the OP article, but that article only quoted his one interview not his subsequent one on TheTimes.
 

Dave

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
76,500
I thought the overarching conversation was quite clear.
The main purpose was to show how short sighted trying to license bicycles actually is.

I'll repost the article incase someone missed it. It's relevant since it was Grant Shapps that precipitated the OP article, but that article only quoted his one interview not his subsequent one on TheTimes.

You sound like an angry cyclist. Are you a MAMIL?
 

Kieppie

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
9,230
You sound like an angry cyclist. Are you a MAMIL?
No, why would I be? That term would probably be applicable to road cyclists only. Understandable given the amount of road rage amongst some drivers.
Not that it has any bearing on the legitimacy of the arguments in the article, but I prefer the outdoors as far away from unskilled drivers as possible.
 

neoprema

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
10,820
What a weird metaphor.
But anyhow, how did you land yourself in such a position that you're so bothered by the constant moaning of UK cyclists?
I seem to follow too many on twitter (not because they’re cyclists lol)
 
Top