Mr Loophole makes renewed call for cyclist number plates, but gets shut down by Jeremy Vine show panel

MF wrote:

All drivers should after retake there driving test every 10 years

Aww hell no! It took me 7 attempts to pass! 😭

I'm never doing it again! 😭

Wheelywheelygood wrote:

We do need [...] total bans from driving or riding for both or even being a passenger , so if u drive badly u can't ride a bike either and vise versa

.
(Sigh... I shouldn't...) Why?

Wheelywheelygood wrote:

The roads and pavements have now become so dangerous we must get these people off the roads permanently ,let them walk or use busses .

But they haven't though, have they? UK roads and streets are some of the safest, statistically.

In a way that's part of the problem. As eg. RoadPeace note - most people don't take the issue seriously because they are never affected.

However do our streets *feel* safe? People do once they're on the footways (which is why people cycle there - and most don't cycle at all) but maybe mistakenly *.

But it doesn't feel so convenient to get about, because people are squeezed to the edges of streets, or impeded by barriers, or forced to hop into the road - because we've prioritised the use of vast amounts of space by motor vehicles over the convenience of everyone outside them.

Safety by getting rid of the non-motorised users. "They make a wasteland, and call it peace."

Buses won't fix that. I reckon you want... some of those deadly cyclists** (1, 2, 3 or more wheels) - otherwise how are you going to get those drivers to change?

* numbers are run over every year on footways by people in motor vehicles there also despite driving there being illegal.

** the carnage illustrated well here:
https://robertweetman.wordpress.com/2017/09/09/just-one-year/

Despite your anecdotal assertions that cyclists are all a bunch of murderous bastards that have to be “saved by eagle-eyed drivers” – an utterly ridiculous notion, as you’d see if you were to actually read any of the KSI statistics for the UK (car vs bike KSI’s are fully the drivers fault 2-3 time more often than they are the cyclist’s, and IIRC bike vs ped KSIs are something like 24% more likely to be the ped’s fault than the cyclist’s) – the fact is that the danger presented by cyclists is statistically irrelevant compared to drivers, and there just isn’t any reasonable justification for the money you’d have to spend to implement such a scheme. Do you realise what would be required to do this?

There are 20 million bikes in the UK compared to 33 million cars. The DVLA would have to double in size to manage the extra work – probably triple in size initially seeing as all of these bikes are unregistered – there is no database of them or where they are. If you’re talking about licences and fines and bans, then would you establish a standard of ability? A test? Then the DSA would also have to double in size, new examiners, new techniques, new training, establishing that new standard. Would you have a minimum age? No kids on bikes any more? That’s going to cause a noticeable effect on the economy. What about MTBs?

Current standard number plates could not be fitted to ~90% of bikes, so you’ll have establish a new standard that would fit, but that current ANPR almost definitely wouldn’t be able to read – so every ANPR camera in the country would have to be retrofitted. You would have to establish a new Police database, new training for officers, and all the new staff required to run and maintain the new systems.

You’re looking at tens of billions of pounds to implement this – not including the legislative process before you could even start with the physical changes required – and the taxpayer would never see anything close to anything of value for that outlay – cyclists just do not present enough danger to justify it. All you’d do is put tall but he most staunch cyclists off cycling for good; you’d have more congestion, more pollution, more crashes, more pedestrian deaths. When policing for poor driving is so bad, there is just no reasonable justification for this.

For every pedestrian a cyclist kills on the pavement, drivers kill 50 (ignoring the other 1,950 deaths and 25,000 serious injuries they cause) and this is despite the fact that cars and pedestrians should only ever be in conflict on crossings, whereas every meter of cyclist infrastructure in the UK is either shared with, or adjacent to (but not separated from) pedestrian spaces. How can you look at this and reasonably justify going after bikes instead of re-doubling enforcement efforts against cars?

Also, would it even meaningfully solve the problem? The police don’t seem to have any issue fining RLJ-ing cyclists, and registered/identifiable drivers don’t seem to have any issues getting away with dangerous behaviour – according to the DfT’s own statistics, most drivers are speeding most of the time (something that’s more dangerous than just about anything someone on a 10kg bike is able to do). What percentage of them actually get caught? And we know from this very website that the Police aren’t interested in going after dangerous drivers, even if you give them video evidence.

There’s a reason that the only country fucking dumb enough to implement this is North Korea.

The poster is a bit of a WUM so I doubt that they even believe it.

I find plenty of folk think "it's computerised" so how can it that hard to implement.

They have no idea of what a database is, sizing, design, system integrity, hardware, testing, running costs, licences, DBA. Then there is the whole problem of specifying the requirement ...

It might be ok. It looks a bit like the combo I had years ago.
Saddle had a slot underneath which matched the lug on top of the pack, then a bit of velcro around the seat post to stop side to side movement.

I know the sort of set up you mean, but I'm not convinced it is that (difficult to tell with the picture quality).  It seems to hang down too far.

Steve K wrote:

We should require all car drivers to have 35 hours of training every five years to keep their licence.

That's what HGV drivers have to do.  And Freeman's logic is if one set of road users have to do something, so should other road users regardless of the differences between their vehicles.

(PS - we'll leave aside the fact that some form periodic re-registration for drivers actually would be a good thing!)

Careful - you might be calling for cyclists to go through training and licencing every five years as well...

Jem PT wrote:

Why stop at cyclists?

I say pedestrians should have a number plate so they can be called to account for dropping litter, etc.

And dogs, so they can be called to account for crapping all over the pavement.

The list is endless!

The one for lawyers should be fitted across the mouth and hermetically sealed all around!

Aargh! Another bloody cyclist calling for more draconian monitoring, like 15 minute cities to keep us from going anywhere! Oh, wait...

A couple of weeks back I reported a close pass from a signed van that had a different number plate to the trailer it was pulling. Perhaps a not dissimilar problem. I await a response from TVP.

A couple of weeks back I reported a close pass from a signed van that had a different number plate to the trailer it was pulling

There are loads of these in Lancashire, along with lots of tractors and quad bikes on the road with no front plates at all, and a smaller number with no rear plates. LC just ignores the reports.

I'm a cyclist and totally opposed to any kind of registration. But if it came to pass, it would make more sense to register the cyclist rather than the bike.
Some bikes are used by more than one person so a plate on the bike doesn't identify the rider (admittedly true for motor vehicles also).
Some cyclists have more than one bike. It seems excessive to require each one to be registered.
A registration plate on the bike is liable to create drag; and will be easily knocked and damaged.
Whilst a tabard is a silly idea because, as you say, it can be obscured by a backpack, riders could wear a plate attached to their back or backpack so that it's always visible. But then, should they wear one on their front also?

So many issues to be addressed for what? Let's reduce deaths and injuries from motor vehicles first.

Adrian Waters wrote:

I'm a cyclist and totally opposed to any kind of registration. But if it came to pass, it would make more sense to register the cyclist rather than the bike. Some bikes are used by more than one person so a plate on the bike doesn't identify the rider (admittedly true for motor vehicles also). Some cyclists have more than one bike. It seems excessive to require each one to be registered. A registration plate on the bike is liable to create drag; and will be easily knocked and damaged. Whilst a tabard is a silly idea because, as you say, it can be obscured by a backpack, riders could wear a plate attached to their back or backpack so that it's always visible. But then, should they wear one on their front also? So many issues to be addressed for what? Let's reduce deaths and injuries from motor vehicles first.

Assuming the premise of "there's a problem that can be solved by registering cycles/cyclists", I'm more in favour of having a nationwide network of LoRa capable devices that would be inserted into the bike frame. Then, each bike frame could be part of a big mesh network that enabled location data on each every bike to be read by someone with access to the encryption keys. This would enable registration without any external aerodynamic drag, but the best bit would be that bike thieves could easily be tracked down.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Assuming the premise of "there's a problem that can be solved by registering cycles/cyclists" ...

Thomas Pynchon wrote:

If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.

chrisonatrike wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Assuming the premise of "there's a problem that can be solved by registering cycles/cyclists" ...

Thomas Pynchon wrote:

If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.

Indeed!

To pinch from CyclingMikey again:

Why are we having this discusion? It is just not going to happen, it is totally unworkable, we have talked about children, what about MTB riders, will they have to reg so as to keep a bike at home just in case they ride on the road?  It is a bonkers idea (bain fart) from a out dated and soon (hopefully) out of power group of people.  They often are the people who shout loudly about 15mins citys and its insult to freedom (what a joke it is also a brain fart!!) but are the fist to call for Me to give account to the goverment every time I pull the bike out of the shed!!!  I would total refuse to be part of this culture war and ride with out plates or reg as I have done all My life, see how long,if we all just on mass defy to play ball (both to talk about it or even if it ever came in to place to reg ourselfs)