Mr Loophole and 'Britain's most hated cyclist' – Dave Sherry call for crackdown on delivery cyclists who break the law

hawkinspeter wrote:

I've just been thinking about the practicalities of identifying any and all cyclists. Obviously we need some kind of mandatory registration, but how do we stop non-registered cyclists from jumping on a bike and destroying the fabric of our society? The only sensible answer is to have mandatory citizen registration of every person in the country - something like a DNA sample and facial picture for every citizen so that all un-licensed cyclists can be tracked and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Also just thought that people's faces can change over time, so maybe we should have a weekly update of everybody's face and hairstyle. It'll be costly and time consuming, but it's the only way we can combat the number one problem in Britain (i.e. cyclists).

I don't think you're thinking enough about this.

Surely we need all cyclists to wear a special symbol, maybe a star made out of spokes? They should also have to register every day at their local police station and they can only wed other cyclists.

Danger Dicko wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I've just been thinking about the practicalities of identifying any and all cyclists. Obviously we need some kind of mandatory registration, but how do we stop non-registered cyclists from jumping on a bike and destroying the fabric of our society? The only sensible answer is to have mandatory citizen registration of every person in the country - something like a DNA sample and facial picture for every citizen so that all un-licensed cyclists can be tracked and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Also just thought that people's faces can change over time, so maybe we should have a weekly update of everybody's face and hairstyle. It'll be costly and time consuming, but it's the only way we can combat the number one problem in Britain (i.e. cyclists).

I don't think you're thinking enough about this.

Surely we need all cyclists to wear a special symbol, maybe a star made out of spokes? They should also have to register every day at their local police station and they can only wed other cyclists.

Yay!  Godwin's law invoked within a few hours of the story being posted!

hawkinspeter wrote:

I've just been thinking about the practicalities of identifying any and all cyclists. Obviously we need some kind of mandatory registration, but how do we stop non-registered cyclists from jumping on a bike and destroying the fabric of our society? The only sensible answer is to have mandatory citizen registration of every person in the country - something like a DNA sample and facial picture for every citizen so that all un-licensed cyclists can be tracked and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Also just thought that people's faces can change over time, so maybe we should have a weekly update of everybody's face and hairstyle. It'll be costly and time consuming, but it's the only way we can combat the number one problem in Britain (i.e. cyclists).

I think that when we cost these measures and apply the appropriate inflation-corrected indices it will become obvious in the cold-light of day to every one that opposes terrorism that the best thing for our big society is to just ban cycling.

Arceye wrote:

I have suggested in the passed and still stand by the idea of removing every cycle path in the country and forcing all cyclists over 12 years on to the road, as it will force more motorists to be aware of them.

You want my 13 year old daughter to be a rolling speed bump? I'm sure the hit and run drivers will drive so much more carefully.

Nope. And learn to spell.

Arceye wrote:

Although I personally don't agree with the law enforcing the use of helmets as their possible benefit is unproven. I personally never go out without my helmet, so if the law enforced them, I wouldn't care. 

If the law is going to enforce high vis clothing then the law should also make every car be painted in high vis colours too.  The use of lights negates the need for high vis. 

Maybe, minimum requirements for acceptable lights ( perhaps only allow lights that can be seen clearly at more than 100Meters distance ) , Some of the lights available are of no use and should not be acceptable as lights. Enforce the law on lights usage more strongly.

Cycling on the footways should be only allowed when it is a shared footway, and cyclists using the footway when not allowed should not get away with it.

Cyclist in my opinion should hold 3rd party insurance, I have it via British cycling for £37 per annum. If using the cycle for business usage then Insurance should be mandatory for business usage.

I have suggested in the passed and still stand by the idea of removing every cycle path in the country and forcing all cyclists over 12 years on to the road, as it will force more motorists to be aware of them.

Although I will never condone a cyclist running a red light even a pedestrian crossing red light when there is nobody crossing. If the law is going to clamp down on things like that then every driver should be accountable for them breaking almost EVERY applicable law EVERY time they drive. Speeding, overtaking when it isn't safe or even legal, parkin where illegal, jumping red lights as often as cyclsits, stopping in the cycle box at lights ( the first solid white line is where they should stop)  Need I go on ???.

The cyclist may appear to be taking risks, but it can be assured the cyslist is very aware of what they are doing, with better spacial awarness, and more alert than any driver, don't forget if the cyclist makes a bad error in judgement they DIE!! where the motorist scratches their vehicle.

I agree about having decent lights: chip or COB, not indicator LEDs (!), no narrow beam torches, over 1W and 100's of lumen front light, and 100's of lumen from a wide view back light. All lights must be grit, water, and drop resistant (Exposure!!), and preferable USB rechargeable, so that they can be recharged anywhere.

I only agree about pedestrian paths when used without consideration. Some estates are so damned clogged with cars parked on both side of the road, with no parking restriction lines(!), that I sometimes need to briefly need to hop on and off a clear path to let cars past and make progress!

A bicycle and cyclist are unlikely to cause much damage to a motor vehicle, without the cyclist getting seriously injured or killed, so probably not in a state to provide insurance details, unlike most vehicle drivers, so 3rd party bicycle insurance is backwards; better cycle or comprehensive insurance!

It is a crazy idea to close all cycle paths, especially off road ones! A lot of roads where I live are dual carriageway or far above 30MPH speed limit, and with lots of roundabouts. This would stop a lot of people cycling, cause more traffic slowdowns thus more inevitable road rage, and require significant detours during road maintenance. I can get some places faster by off road cycle paths because I don't have to deal with lots of roundabouts, or try to cross busy roads, and can cut across estates on shared use cycle paths, when more direct, and avoid their shocking speed bumps, and use a lot more bridges across railway lines, major roads, and canals. Also having to cycle on a road exposes cyclists to more exhaust pollution, especially horrible Diesel dust from the stupidly pushed Diesel vehicles!

Cyclists may have better front and side visibility, but don't have three easy to adjust mirrors to see behind, don't have as much acceleration to move out of danger have to avoid poor road surface areas, have to avoid brake locking, and vehicle lights at night can be just as dazzling to cyclists!

Arceye wrote:

Although I personally don't agree with the law enforcing the use of helmets as their possible benefit is unproven. I personally never go out without my helmet, so if the law enforced them, I wouldn't care. 

When did this law come in?