"You're nicked!" Lord Sugar sparks debate on whether cyclists should carry compulsory ID

Here's an interesting point here. A couple of years ago I was stopped taking my 7 year old son home from school by bike. Yes we traveled on the pavement and we were stopped by the police.

Sorry you and your son can't do that I was told. I said I could because a 7 year is not allowed in control on the road in or on any form of vehicle and that as his father I was also allowed to follow my son providing that I caused no nuisance to other pavement users. Which we hadn't. In fact a couple of people came up to tell this jobs worth copper we had been polite and gave way to them and others on the pavement.

The copper asked for my name and address and said he would have to check into this because he thought I was wrong. Day later the copper was eating humble pie saying next time I will be done.

Further more I brought this up with the Police London Bike Squad at a show a couple of weeks later. I was correct in my research. There is actually no law against riding on a pavement its the way you do it. You see cars parked on pavements and they are not done because presumibly they would have had to drive on the pavements to park.

Generally I ride on the rode its better and quicker but sons ride on the pavement if they are at risk

Just what constitutes "Jumping a Red Light"?
The term does not distinguish two quite separate cases:

1) A cyclist ignores the red light and blunders through, coming into conflict with other traffic and/or pedestrians.

Such a cyclist should be shot.

2) A cyclist stops at the red light and, knowing the phasing of the lights and having observed there are no pedestrians crossing, and all traffic has come to a halt, pulls away marginally before the light turns to red & amber.

Such a cyclist is behaving considerately and is reducing, not only their risk, but that of other road users. Yet, they'll be fined for their efforts. I was.

I continue this practice at a few junctions where two lanes of waiting traffic converge into a single lane at the opposite side of the junction. It is best not be cycling there when the motor vehicles converge. You are at risk of getting squashed, while drivers jockey for position. You are also annoying drivers, because you are in the way. Annoyed drivers are dangerous drivers, so it best to avoid annoying them. (Getting a second's head start on them, probably annoys them too, but my estimate is that it should annoy them less.)

I do the same, for the same reason, at road works, where the single remaining lane is too narrow for a car to safely overtake a bicycle. I have been hooted at for being in the way, in such a scenario, so now I go when I judge it is safe, regardless of the red light.

I can survive a fine. I am not sure I can survive a crash.

So nick me!

Requiring people to carry ID takes us back to the second world war when it was likely that we were being invaded (although with the Eurostar "Lille" loophole I think we now are!).

Incidentally whenever I am stopped by the Police I show my driving license without being asked.

This is my take on red lights (which were of course introduced for cars, not bicycles)

1. If there is no left turn, cyclists should be allowed to go through on red.
2. Cyclists should be allowed to turn left on red.
3. Cyclists should be allowed to go through red lights off-peak - this especially applies to lights that are only triggered by the weight of a car. In fact why not go one better and switch lights to flashing amber off peak?
4. If a cyclist is threatened or feels threatened by a motorist they should be allowed to go through a red light.
5. Discretion should be shown in extreme weather conditions. Motorists have heaters in their cars the only heater a cyclist has is powered by movement.

I have seen a cyclist rush through a red light in front of a bus and almost been hit, something I would never do myself.

If there is no advance stop line I will always go over the line and stop just after the pedestrian crossing. This is purely defensive so that I don't get hit by left turning cars.

While I'm at it, all "one-way" streets should have an implicit cycle contra-flow unless explicity restricted.

Will it happen? When the love affair with the car comes to an end. Mind you in Beeching's time the railways were costing £18 million per year compared to £600 million per year for the roads, so I won't hold my breath.

Lose your wallet/purse? HAVE TO WALK HOME Capital Cycles

On my way in this morning I saw a cyclist actually stop at a pedestrian crossing when there were no pedestrians crossing - that's progress!

As a reasonably responsible cyclist - who doesn't run the odd red light? (probably quite a few of you) but often when I break the rules it is because someone else is doing the same thing and squeezing me out of my space. If a lorry, 5 mopeds and a car are sat in the advanced bike stop box then of course you are going to try and get in front and sometimes break a rule if you think your safety is compromised, which it quite often is.

There are some horrendous cyclists about also and you wince when you see them taking ridiculous risks but there are just as many horrendous bus drivers, pedestrians and generally anyone who is also squashed into this tiny land of ours and trying to get around. Accountability is all our responsibilities and shouldn't need to be in the form of an ID card.

The problem is not the pavement cyclists. There is no such thing as a bad cyclist, just bad infrastructure.

When out cycling I have a card with a couple of ICE #s, Name and medical info. When out walking it's the same. When driving, I do not carry my licence. The police if they Pcheck me in any of these modes have the access to data bases that will confirm who I say I am.

To suggest going down this route is daft. Though, confiscating the bikes of those who RLJ and pavement cycle is quite a nice idea. If they are suggesting that cyclists should carry ID, then parity is called for and ALL road users should carry ID. I would take it further and have vehicles displaying a VED, MOT and insurance disc. Any vehicle not or with expired discs gets impounded.

Would under 18's need an ID? IF not, would they need to be accompanied by an adult? This suggestion is only making cycling less desireable. Fortunately it was only a motion to make the lords time less tedious.

Is he trying to improve relations between us and other road users by making cyclists more accountable? I don't have a problem with the principle, but I don't think people should be obliged to carry ID or have their bike confiscated.

I would be happy to have some kind of numberplate to allow police to identify my bike though - or a database of frame numbers it could be checked against.

Cycling used to be fun once. Its a little like football before the premiership
When did Sugar last ride a bike. Why do we need his ideas, he gave up on business years ago to make Beeb shows.
Many value the freedom of cycling but there is always someone trying to enlist big brother ..

Hi again, I thought that the reason for "Laws" was for safety purposes? So that means traffic stays on roads, pedestrians use pavements when not crossing carriagewaqys and the "Wooden Tops" caught those who did it in the wrong way! Sorry if I've got it wrong, but that was what I read about when I last read the Highway Code. The fact that far too many chumps cycle on pavements gets me grief when I don't! But if I were to ride my 30 inch wide trke on the pavement there would be either carnage or no progress, so I stay on the road where I have the right to move, rather than the pavement where I have no Legal Right! Wise up, ride on the road and make drivers use a modicum of patience. TTFN MM

With reference to the law/highway code on cycling on footpaths (£30 fine), what about all the cars that drive up on to footpaths when parking should they not all recieve similar fines?

Like alot of the drivers around me I thought red lights were only advisory! Anyway the police can only demand once they've stopped you and their H&S doesn't allow them off road!

Catch me if you can!

Some say he's no sense of irony, calling for more regulation of cyclists when drivers kill more and he opposes business regulations.

All we know is, he's called the Shug.

Has cycling found its Clarkson?

I carry my driver's licence, plus my phone and some money when I go for recreational rides. Of course when I am commuting i will have my wallet etc on me. Small saddle bags are excellent for this. I've got a Deuter one with an expandable section for a small rain jacket or some extra gear/tools.

I wear a roadID. It has my Name, DOB, phone contact details on it (family), my blood type and that I am an organ donor. It also carries my signature(road cc)and war cry of
FREEEEEEEEDOM!
I carry my CI(Cycling Ireland (vet))licence and believe that is all I need carry for identification purposes. I don't ride on the pavement...and there certainly aren't that many where I ride either. I think Mr Sugar is out to lunch on this one. On that note a fellow cyclist was stopped and warned by the Gardai after 'running' a red light at roadworks, despite there actually being no roadworks going on and no opposing traffic...can't say I condone his actions, but the Garda must have been on a slow day...

If only I was one of those cyclists that give us a bad name cycling on pavements, jumping red lights, maybe I'd still have a bike to ride instead of it (and me to some extent) being squashed by a bus.
How about addressing the sh**e roads that we have to commute on, the sh**e car & bus drivers that seem to want to kill us every day, then we can talk about prosecuting the odd cyclist here and there for wanting to cycle on the pavements.
Maybe Lard Sugar should get a few more years peak time commuting under his belt before commenting.

"The difference is that if you're stopped by a police officer there, whether you're in a car, on a bike or on foot, you really do need to be carrying something that proves who you are if you want to avoid a lot of hassle."

Not so Simon. Only in special circumstances on foot or cycling. They often like to think they can but they have no right to normally.

I'd suggest Plod takes a little more interest in the number of drivers jumping red lights. Seems to have suddenly become de rigeur to go through on amber or red - I witness examples just about every time I'm on the road. Nearly T-Boned a taxi in Leicester this morning. Professional drivers, my arse.

AND Greedy lord sugar will try to make a profit from it.

I carry my bus pass (as emergency back up get me home)in case of frame failure,exploding bottom bracket or severe bout of bonk. Does Lord Sugar carry his? Would a bus pass count as ID ? there's no address on it. Does Lord Sugar even have a bus pass? Would it even be of any use considering most of my cycling takes me well out into the countryside? Seriously though, it is a good idea to carry some sort of ID/contact details. Two years ago I suffered a sub arachnoid anuerism whilst training (hill reps) I was alone, fortunately a passing motorist,a nurse, got me an ambulance and another motorist returned my bike etc to my home address which together with my wife's mobile number were on my TLI racing licence.

For starters mounting pavements is not an offence for cyclists. Niether i believe is jumping a red???? When cyclists are "done" for this, it can only be under the premise of them endangering the public (the offence) by doing so.... So maybe sugar should get his facts right before making a fool of himself with nonsense proposals that highlight his misunderstanding of the law, and ignorance of the fact that this is a country that does not have id cards and has refused to so repeatedly and refutedly... What a waste of time and breath

I am so tired of hearing people whine about cyclists breaking traffic laws. Perhaps we count dead bodies instead, and aim enforcement efforts and rule-making in a direction that will reduce that number. Law-breaking cyclists are a minor threat to life and limb. Law-breaking (and SMIDSY, apparently driving-while-blind is not against the law) drivers are a major threat to life and limb. Solve that problem first, then let's attend to the cycling scofflaws.

And NO, obeying the law does not "earn us respect". First, I tried it for decades, didn't do crap. Second, there's not a goddamn thing I can do about other cyclists, and the drivers lump us all together anyway. I've tried -- twice I've chased down red-light runners to tell them "you're making us all look bad". That was pointless. What gets you "respect" is how you look -- lycra is "other", riding in work clothes (especially if you are an older, white, male) gets you "respect", if anything does. Daytime running lights seem to help -- if you "surprise" a driver, that makes them angry, and thus they won't respect you. (DRL vs hi-viz is a tough call; my thinking is to be as visible as possible in a "normal" way.)

I bought an Amstrad midi system in 1985. It had a graphic equalizer and tape to tape.

It's broken already. And for that reason, I will never believe anything Sir Alan ever says.

I normally will have my wallet with me when I'm on my bike, but it doesn't always have my driving licence in. So is my credit card and oyster card enough?
This is the same as what I have on me walking on the streets if a Policeman wanted to give me a fixed penalty fine for anything else.

Lord Sugar expanded on his comments yesterday, saying: "Cyclists should carry some form of ID, so they can get nicked by police for jumping pavement or lights. Otherwise they just lie who they are."

I'm pretty sure giving incorrect details to a Policeman is a far more serious offence than what you might get for red light jumping.

In reply, Lord Atlee, who is the grandson of the Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee, said the government had no plans to introduce such a requirement.

Some common sense from the Governmenta at least

This debate sounds like a lot of backbenchers sounding off about their own personal grievances more than anything constructive.

I think it shows a touching faith in human nature to believe that people willing to disobey the law re: red lights would choose to obey one about carrying id with them.