# 2 Things I would change...



## Boris Bajic (27 Apr 2012)

I find (to my surprise) that threads on this forum have softened or altered some of my thinking.

I'm a keen driver and cyclist, but I see a road environment in which the current hegemony of the motor vehicle is beginning to have its foundations undermined. Not rocking and crumbling yet, but the first digging has started. As a cyclist, a friend of cyclists and the father of cyclists, I am not upset by this.

I see fringe-dwellings crazies on both the _anti-bike_ and _anti-car_ side of some debates (not necessarily on this forum). On this forum I read a lot of sensible, thoughtful, thought-provoking points. I'm looking for more of that.

So the question: If you could introduce two things into the fabric of civic society (not necessarily laws) that would make the roads a better place to be,* what would those two things be*?

My slightly jumbled thinking is that a harmonious future does not rely on more bike lanes, lower speed limits or greater penalties for poor driving. I do not like the idea of mandatory training for cyclists (although I think it might help some complete fruitcakes).

My wishlist (and it is just that) is as follows:

*1.* Introduce a voluntary cycling proficiency test for all ages and all road users, the passing of which would reduce (inter alia and by any margin) one's car-insurance premium. This would involve extensive on-road training. There would have to be some invention done to overcome situations where disability made riding impossible.

*2.* Introduce lessons (maybe half-termly) in Primary and Secondary Schools covering correct behaviour in traffic. This might include an cycling-proficiency element, but wouldn't need to. It would involve driving simulation, pedestrian behaviour, sections on interacting with other modes of transport... talks from the emergency services... all sorts of junk. Many schools already do something like this, but it seems not to be sewn into the fabric of the education year. I would sew it in there.

I'm not looking for a flame-out debate here, but am interested in what other members think might be the two key changes that would make the roads a happier and safer place to be.

What would your two changes be?


----------



## akb (27 Apr 2012)

Ban all cyclists. Ban all Motor Vehicles. Simples. 

[serious head on]
My view is to provide an education for all motorists about cyclista and vice versa. Not neccesarily in schools, but during driving lessons too. For cyclist, I am at the agreement that there should be some sort of training in how to use the road properly before rubber meets tarmac and how to correctly navigate motorists. If it wasnt for this forum, and the guidance given, I would still be pretty hesitant about driving on the roads. Via this forum I can now ride both assertively and safely. Unfortunately, not all cyclists form part of this forum.
There should also be an emphasis on correct techniques for motorists when 'dealing' with cyclist, and I strongly believe that a motorist should have to sit refresher courses on the highway code. Being a car driver, I cant remember the last time I checked the HC. It should be compulsory to view it once in a while, be it annually, every 2 years, I am not sure.
[serious head off]

My 2ps worth.


----------



## jdtate101 (27 Apr 2012)

I like the idea of the incentivised insurance reduction. As we know people are motivated by money (or saving money in this case), If you can get them into an awareness course, which will help them appreciate the risks cyclists face, how to avoid causing those problems and general safety, then that has got to be a good thing. Even better would be to make it a mandatory part of the driving test or a requirement for all newly insured drivers (ie no course...no insurance).

A bit of carrot to go with the stick can reap results.


----------



## jdtate101 (27 Apr 2012)

Another thing I would like to see, is areas of towns closed to motor vehicles for a couple of days per year (like the sky rides), so kids can get out on the roads in a fun way without cars and lorries about.


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (27 Apr 2012)

I only want one change really and that is for *everyone* to just chill out and be polite to other road users. Too many of us take our anger or frustration out on to the roads with us regardless of mode of transport.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Apr 2012)

overnight conversion of all UK non-motorway speed limits from mph to kph.

taxation of on street car parking spaces and company car parks.


----------



## psmiffy (27 Apr 2012)

I would like to see the adoption in civil law of the principle that motor vehicles are at fault in collisions with cyclist unless proved otherwise - (and probably also in vehicular law wrt pedestrians - if you hit a pedestrian with any vehicle its your fault unless proved otherwise)

Make it a privilege to have a driving licence rather than a right - long bans and retests made mandatory for careless and dangerous driving - repeat offending


----------



## Smokin Joe (27 Apr 2012)

Free petrol.

Zero road tax for Vauxhall Astras.


----------



## defy-one (27 Apr 2012)

psmiffy said:


> I would like to see the adoption in civil law of the principle that motor vehicles are at fault in collisions with cyclist unless proved otherwise - (and probably also in vehicular law wrt pedestrians - if you hit a pedestrian with any vehicle its your fault unless proved otherwise)
> 
> Make it a privilege to have a driving licence rather than a right - long bans and retests made mandatory for careless and dangerous driving - repeat offending



Thats it - blame the driver of a motor vehicle and portion no resonsibility on other road users (cyclists or pedestrians) - i see people walk out on zebra crossings everyday in London, and yet it's my fault if i hit them is it?
Everyone needs to slow down and ackowledge other road users!!!!


Sent by iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CopperCyclist (27 Apr 2012)

Voluntary option to have a camera running on cars at all times to reduce insurance, as they have in some states in the US I believe.

Option to then make the above camera compulsory after some road traffic convictions, for a fixed periods, with scheduled checks on the footage.


----------



## MrJamie (27 Apr 2012)

I was thinking about how there were tv campaigns for the rare event you need to know how to overtake a horse so it doesnt kick out your headlights or the ideal speed for running over children, but i dont think ive ever seen a cycling related campaign.

I agree about making a driving license more about a priviledge than a right, but in light of being different ill complain about crap/non existent cycle parking.


----------



## HovR (27 Apr 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> Zero road tax for Vauxhall Astras.


 
But it already has zero _road tax!  _


----------



## fatblokish (27 Apr 2012)

Build a duplicate network of roads about 10 metres below ground, use of which would be mandatory for drivers.

Am I allowed two wishes? Oooh goody, then free zero-cal chocolate eclairs for all cyclists.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (27 Apr 2012)

Better maintained roads would be nice, and safer riding, for sure, especially in winter. Better street lighting.


----------



## ianrauk (27 Apr 2012)

1: Get rid of high-viz
2: Get rid of cycle lanes


----------



## sidevalve (27 Apr 2012)

Make EVERYBODY obay the highway code, including pedestrians, cyclists, m/cyclists, drivers even horse riders and enforce it for ALL.
No 2 in the OP, some sort of road sense should be compulsory for all ages, even tiny kids can get a grip on it if tought young enough.


----------



## Dan B (28 Apr 2012)

I'm with the presumed liability "crazies". The roads are public places: operators of potentially dangerous machinery in public places should be required to take care in its operation proportionate to the danger they bring. Perhaps excepting motorways and some dual carriageways where equivalent parallel provision exists, but certainly in towns and villages and other places people live, the law should favor people, not their exoskeletons. If you want to go antisocially fast, use a private road or take the train


----------



## theclaud (28 Apr 2012)

530kam said:


> i see people walk out on zebra crossings everyday in London, and yet it's my fault if i hit them is it?



Yup. Next!


----------



## theclaud (28 Apr 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I find (to my surprise) that threads on this forum have softened or altered some of my thinking.
> 
> I see a road environment in which the current hegemony of the motor vehicle is beginning to have its foundations undermined.



This is all good. The rest is bollocks, because once you've sorted out the problem, you don't need to fanny about tinkering with the symptoms.


----------



## Boris Bajic (28 Apr 2012)

ianrauk said:


> 1: Get rid of high-viz
> 2: Get rid of cycle lanes


 
Can we have a _*'half-like'*_ button please?

I have yet to see a cycle lane in the UK that I'd use. I'd scrap them all in a second.

But...  Although I'm not a user of hi-viz in the accepted sense of the word, I don't think it takes anything away - and when I'm driving it has helped me to identify riders at asafer distance.


----------



## theclaud (28 Apr 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Can we have a _*'half-like'*_ button please?
> 
> I have yet to see a cycle lane in the UK that I'd use. I'd scrap them all in a second.
> 
> But... Although I'm not a user of hi-viz in the accepted sense of the word, I don't think it takes anything away - and when I'm driving it has helped me to identify riders at asafer distance.



It doth offend Mr Collins's eye. And it makes everyone look like a Space Lemon.


----------



## Boris Bajic (28 Apr 2012)

theclaud said:


> It doth offend Mr Collins's eye. And it makes everyone look like a Space Lemon.


 
Great.... That's really done it.

Now I'm going to have a dream about Space Lemons and I don't even know what they are...

I have a good friend in eastern Turkey called Rubad, a member of an oppressed minority and a keen cyclist. He only ever rides in HiViz.

Does that mean he's a.... No.... Better not... I'm not sure that's in very good taste.

Please keep the ideas coming. Even if it's dull for everyone else, I'm finding some of the replies illuminating. I particularly like Bill-on-a-Bike's one about cameras in cars.


----------



## snorri (28 Apr 2012)

I'm not convinced that testing and retesting drivers will do much good, most incidents of bad driving I see are as a result of impatience or selfishness rather than lack of driving skill.
Unless it's attitude testing we are discussing.


----------



## defy-one (28 Apr 2012)

theclaud said:


> Yup. Next!




Claud - in a perfect world - where pedestrians -cars - cyclist and motorbikes would all have their segregated lanes


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Apr 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Can we have a _*'half-like'*_ button please?
> 
> I have yet to see a cycle lane in the UK that I'd use. I'd scrap them all in a second.
> 
> But... Although I'm not a user of hi-viz in the accepted sense of the word, *I don't think it takes anything away* - and when I'm driving it has helped me to identify riders at asafer distance.


It doesn't take anything away?

It takes away my enjoyment of the built environment and the rural one (yes mtb-ers I'm talking to you) because...

...hi-viz doth offend mine eye.

Edit: and what is this safer distance thing. If you're looking for em you'll see em.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Apr 2012)

530kam said:


> Claud - in a perfect world - where pedestrians -cars - cyclist and motorbikes would all have their segregated lanes


and until then.... you give way to pedestrians...


----------



## theclaud (28 Apr 2012)

530kam said:


> Claud - in a perfect world - where pedestrians -cars - cyclist and motorbikes would all have their segregated lanes



Perfect world? Sounds like a vision of hell.


----------



## ianrauk (28 Apr 2012)

GregCollins said:


> It doesn't take anything away?
> 
> It takes away my enjoyment of the built environment and the rural one (yes mtb-ers I'm talking to you) because...
> 
> ...


 
Nail on the proverbial head dear Sir.


----------



## Boris Bajic (28 Apr 2012)

GregCollins said:


> It doesn't take anything away?
> 
> It takes away my enjoyment of the built environment and the rural one (yes mtb-ers I'm talking to you) because...
> 
> ...


 
OK. This is me now standing corrected.

Change No 1. No Hi-Viz.

Change No 2? Bread & Butter Pudding on Tuesdays for every course of every meal and I get to choose the wallpaper in the dining room?

I feel we're approaching consensus here and am keen to reach a positive outcome.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Apr 2012)

the bread and butter pudding thing, it ain't gonna work, but I'll let you sort the wallpaper, so long as it ain't hi-viz.


----------



## StuAff (28 Apr 2012)

ianrauk said:


> 1: Get rid of high-viz
> 2: Get rid of cycle lanes


+1. With the caveat that if cycle lanes were sensibly planned and properly maintained, they would be a good thing. Oh, wait....

Two more:
1. Ban taxis of any form from bus lanes. They're private hire vehicles, not public transport.
2. Mandatory, as part of driving instruction and testing, awareness training for drivers to appreciate the threats they pose to cyclists and bikers. The pupils would go out on said vehicles, on tandems/pillion if need be. Fellow instructors (or helpful motoryclists/cyclists) would then close pass them, including head on, drive too fast, swear at them for no reason, and so forth. The pupils' reactions/responses would be tested as part of their normal written and practical exams. Any references to non-existant road tax, helmet compulsion,lack of high-viz clothing, etc would result in failure.


----------



## Recycler (28 Apr 2012)

My wish list.......

1. Maintenance free chains.
2. Motorists never pass too close.


........oh, and all hills to be levelled out!


----------



## defy-one (28 Apr 2012)

Motorists are NOT the anti-Christ folks - just a heads up! 
Plenty of idiots in a hurry or ignorant of traffic safety on foot,cycles & motorbikes out there.

That's my point.

I see some scary behaviour in London most days - and believe me it's not car drivers in the main


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Apr 2012)

530kam said:


> Motorists are NOT the anti-Christ folks - just a heads up!
> Plenty of idiots in a hurry or ignorant of traffic safety on foot,cycles & motorbikes out there.
> 
> That's my point.
> ...


help me out... so I can understand your perspective properly, how many people did pedestrians or cyclists kill or seriously injure in the last 10 years compared with motorists?


----------



## lukesdad (28 Apr 2012)

1 All taxes and duties raised from road users. Spent on road users.

2 Compulsory mentoring for new cyclists.


----------



## TheDoctor (28 Apr 2012)

^^ Neither of those things 
How about
Compulsory periodic re-testing of all drivers
All trains to accept bikes at all times.


----------



## lukesdad (28 Apr 2012)

1826917 said:


> And to make up any shortfall?


 
Obviously expenditure on roads, payed by taxes and duties raised from road users.

Thats all expenditure, where's the shortfall ?


----------



## lukesdad (28 Apr 2012)

TheDoctor said:


> ^^ Neither of those things
> How about
> Compulsory periodic re-testing of all drivers
> All trains to accept bikes at all times.


 
In that case you would have no problem with periodic testing of cyclists then, I assume ?


----------



## lukesdad (28 Apr 2012)

Not an option Adrian. You don't pay for it you don;t get it ! Simple as that.


----------



## Boris Bajic (28 Apr 2012)

TheDoctor said:


> ^^ Neither of those things
> How about
> Compulsory periodic re-testing of all drivers
> All trains to accept bikes at all times.


 
I've never understood why a frankly comical demonstration of my inability to drive a car at the age of 17 should qualify me to do so until I'm in my 70s. We ought really to be re-tested every decade and should pay quite heavily for the test.

I like the trains thing too.


----------



## Boris Bajic (28 Apr 2012)

lukesdad said:


> In that case you would have no problem with periodic testing of cyclists then, I assume ?


 
It wasn't my original proposal, but I'm in favour of re-tests for car, truck, bus and motorcycle licences.

However, I wouldn't test cyclists at any point. I'm sure a case could be made for doing so, but I'd be against it. I'd offer lots of training, but no test for unpowered vehicles.


----------



## lukesdad (28 Apr 2012)

1826945 said:


> What do you mean option? What do you propose to do where the amount raised from road users is not enough to pay for our roads?


 Are you being dense Adrian ? There is no shortfall you only can spend the money you raise.


----------



## lukesdad (28 Apr 2012)

1826947 said:


> And pedestrians?


 here we go again


----------



## lukesdad (28 Apr 2012)

Well if I want a facility I'm willing to pay for it question is are you ?


----------



## Boris Bajic (28 Apr 2012)

1826956 said:


> And if this leaves us with a crumbling road network and no facility to improve anything?


 
Hardtail MTB, Maxxis Ignitors and a sense of humour will get you over any poor road surfaces you want...

But all this is theoretical. The two changes have been decided:

1. No HiVis
2. I get to choose the wallpaper in the dining room.

The bread&butter pudding thing fell at the first vote and I had to retract my training and schoolroom proposals. That's democracy at work.


----------



## Boris Bajic (28 Apr 2012)

1826975 said:


> I'm sure that they would but if I want to ride something just a teensy bit more road orientated?


 
If the Exchequer were Donald Ducked and we'd run out of smooth blacktop, that WOULD be road-orientated. 

If the roads changed, you'd have to change with them.

For the full TdF experience, you could lock out the forks and go with the long-stem, low bars and road saddle option.

Obviously, the triple chainring would have to be dumped from the hardtail.... Just as now, no proper road bike has more than two of those.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (28 Apr 2012)




----------



## TheDoctor (28 Apr 2012)

lukesdad said:


> In that case you would have no problem with periodic testing of cyclists then, I assume ?


 
Yes, actually, I would.
Pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists all use the road as of right. It's drivers who can potentially harm people and property, which is why they are examined and charged for the privilege of using the roads. A privilege that can be taken away.


----------



## oldfatfool (28 Apr 2012)

Cars and motorised vehicles only allowed on the roads mon-fri, non motorised vehicles sat-sun


----------



## deanE (28 Apr 2012)

I would like to see bike lanes that were fit for purpose, not an excuse to get cyclists out of the way of motorists. Properly segregated areas, good surface, with the same right of way as the main carriageway, and not ending at a pinch point after 100yds or so. And where these dream cycle lanes existed I would be appy to see them compulsory.
I would also suggest that car insurance companies spend their advertising money on public information films, updating motorists' and cyclists' knowledge, to replace the non funny TV commercials currently shown.


----------



## TheDoctor (28 Apr 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> Cars and motorised vehicles only allowed on the roads mon-fri, non motorised vehicles sat-sun


 
What, so I can't cycle to work, I've got to drive??
Along with the other hundred cyclists where I work?
Storming idea. Instant gridlock...


----------



## lukesdad (29 Apr 2012)

1826972 said:


> The thing is that our roads provide a facility for all of us, whether we pay VED, fuel duty etc directly or not. You will need to define what is in and what is out on both sides of your income and expenditure model


 
I'll define something in a minute !


----------



## lukesdad (29 Apr 2012)

TheDoctor said:


> Yes, actually, I would.
> Pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists all use the road as of right. It's drivers who can potentially harm people and property, which is why they are examined and charged for the privilege of using the roads. A privilege that can be taken away.


 
It has nothing to do with right, and everything to do with safety. Do you for one moment, think there would be roads but for motorists.

As for your suggestion about trains, who do you expect to pay for that ? Or is this another cyclists right ?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (29 Apr 2012)

lukesdad said:


> It has nothing to do with right, and everything to do with safety. *Do you for one moment, think there would be roads but for motorists*.
> 
> As for your suggestion about trains, who do you expect to pay for that ? Or is this another cyclists right ?


 
The Romans had roads, and folk before them, and everyone since, well before the invention of the internal combustion engine. Cycling campaigners were instrumental in getting roads metalled and improved.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (29 Apr 2012)

psmiffy said:


> I would like to see the adoption in civil law of the principle that motor vehicles are at fault in collisions with cyclist unless proved otherwise - (and probably also in vehicular law wrt pedestrians - if you hit a pedestrian with any vehicle its your fault unless proved otherwise)





530kam said:


> Thats it - blame the driver of a motor vehicle and portion no resonsibility on other road users (cyclists or pedestrians) - i see people walk out on zebra crossings everyday in London, and yet it's my fault if i hit them is it?


This is the misunderstanding that seems always to arise when presumed (and strict) liability are raised. It's not appropriate to talk about "fault" and "blame" in respect of this issue. Presumed liability is not a criminal law issue, it is a civil law issue. In this context, criminal law is about blame and punishment, whereas civil law is about liability and reparations.
"Strict liability" is the principle that, irrespective of who was at fault, the driver of the motor vehicle should be liable for making reparations (and that is what motor insurance is for).
"Presumed liability" is slightly more relaxed than this and says that, unless the cyclist can be proven to have caused the incident, then the driver of the motor vehicle is held liable for reparations.
The question of whether the driver broke the law is unaffected by strict or presumed liability, and would be the subject of a separate criminal prosecution if appropriate.


----------



## TheDoctor (29 Apr 2012)

lukesdad said:


> It has nothing to do with right, and everything to do with safety. Do you for one moment, think there would be roads but for motorists.
> 
> As for your suggestion about trains, who do you expect to pay for that ? Or is this another cyclists right ?


 
Roads existed long before motorists, and will exist long after them. And if motorists have the self proclaimed right to transfer risk away from themselves and onto more vulnerable road users, to the tune of 3000 body-bags a year, then I don't think a bookable (and yes, payable  ) bike area on a train is too much to ask for.


----------



## lukesdad (29 Apr 2012)

They did indeed however, i dont think the carbon thoro'breds of today would have lasted long on them tho.

I assume you expect the fare for carriage of your bike to be subsidised, as your fares are now ?

I'm not surprised,you didn't like the suggestion of mine,to use the income from road users to pay for the upkeep of roads. After all if this were to be the sole use of this income, it would leave a pretty big hole in the finances to subsidise other forms of transport. I'm sure this dawned on you when it was suggested.


----------



## TheDoctor (29 Apr 2012)

Didn't even think of it. You do seem determined to have a row with me though...


----------



## lukesdad (29 Apr 2012)

Not at all, you' d know if i wanted a row i can assure you 

The OP asked what people would like to see, I made my 2 suggestions which you plainly disagreed with, hence my ongoing interest.


----------



## Steve Malkin (29 Apr 2012)

I've read lots in this thread about how things should be 'enforced' or 'banned' or how we need to fundamentally change the road infrastructure to make it a better place for cyclists. None of that is practical or will work in my opinion. 

I think the real issue here is that whether we like it or not cyclists are a small minority of road users at present, and our needs are not the driving force in determining policy and shaping attitudes.

However, I am hopeful that thing will improve in future. Like many others I find myself using my car less and my bike more as time goes by due to the rising costs of motoring and if this trend continues then the proportion of cyclists to other vehicles on the road will increase and if that happens then the balance will naturally shift in favor of the roads becoming more 'cycle friendly'.

So my advice would be simply to encourage as many people as possible to get out there and use their bikes on our dangerous potholed overcrowded roads. It may not get a lot better in my lifetime, but if enough of us do that then the roads will become a better place for our children to enjoy cycling on in future.


----------



## lukesdad (29 Apr 2012)

As for my other suggestion, the sphere of influence within this forum, as i see it is with cyclists. if you want to influence motorists or insurance companies post on one of their forums. I'd like to put my own house in order first. One way or the other you are preaching to the converted on here.


----------



## psmiffy (29 Apr 2012)

1827541 said:


> Quantified that hole yet?


 
about £40bn - govt figures for money raised is a bit under £50bn - spending is a little under £10bn


----------



## psmiffy (29 Apr 2012)

1827572 said:


> Did you read the part entitled "Externalities" starting at paragraph 45?


yes - and?


----------



## lukesdad (29 Apr 2012)

Of course that £50 billion doesn t seem to include VAT on all services supported motorists, let alone other road users. VAT on new bike sales for instance. Remember my initial point was all road users, even though some would like to turn it into a cyclist vs motorist debate. If your going to bring in extremeties, there is value of employment associated with such services.


----------



## TheDoctor (29 Apr 2012)

TheDoctor said:


> Didn't even think of it. You do seem determined to have a row with me though...





lukesdad said:


> Not at all, you' d know if i wanted a row i can assure you


 
Heh-heh 
Fairynuff, obviously me misreading it then 

The problem with ringfencing things - taxes from road users only being spent on roads - is where do you stop?
I don't have kids - should I be taxed to pay for schools? Does a lifetime of hard drinking entitle me to a replacement liver on demand? After all, the tax on alcohol has paid for the operation...
It's a tricky one.


----------



## srw (29 Apr 2012)

1827572 said:


> Did you read the part entitled "Externalities" starting at paragraph 45?


_£70bn to £95bn?!?!? _Most of it for _congestion_????!!!! Cripes.


----------



## srw (29 Apr 2012)

lukesdad said:


> extremeties,


You might like to read box 2 of the report being linked to....


----------



## lukesdad (29 Apr 2012)

Yes Ive read that, your point ?


----------



## lukesdad (29 Apr 2012)

I see a bit of Govt. spin is tolerated when it suits 

Unfortunately you ve missed the trick on congestion costs, under the proposal havn t you ? I thought you would have been a bit smarter than that.


----------



## Boris Bajic (29 Apr 2012)

Play nicely....


----------



## lukesdad (29 Apr 2012)

1828573 said:


> I didn't post the link


 
Neither did I funnily enough.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (29 Apr 2012)

If it helps, I didn't either.


----------



## lukesdad (29 Apr 2012)

1828608 said:


> So its not me posting anyone's spin is it.


 
No you only usually post your own spin


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (29 Apr 2012)




----------



## psmiffy (29 Apr 2012)

1828644 said:


> By spin you mean soundly based and well argued points which usually end up sadly wasted?


I admit to posting the link  however, I have not seen any points - either soundly based or well argued - in fact I am a bit of a loss really to see what is being "debated"


----------



## lukesdad (29 Apr 2012)

Well my original points were based on my judgement, which, as you well know is usually fairly sound


----------



## Pat "5mph" (29 Apr 2012)

The romans, ancient greeks, heck even the british (I seem to remember ) , used to get prisoners of war to build/maintain the road network. Who we gonna get? "Traffic Jam Busters Teams" 
You jumped that red light, now go fill that pot hole!
.... I'll get my cat, head to bed, then ....


----------



## lukesdad (30 Apr 2012)

1828822 said:


> What is your point? Have you decided what are reasonable figures for the money collected and for the costs?


 Yes.


----------



## lukesdad (30 Apr 2012)

1828644 said:


> By spin you mean soundly based and well argued points which usually end up sadly wasted?


My apologies, I must of missed that thread, which year was it again ?


----------



## RAYMOND (30 Apr 2012)

1.
Ban all road vehicles and lets go back to horses, barges and canals, trams, ok lets keep the buses for the oldies.
Then we can have the roads to cycle,everyone will get fitter,less health problems, the N.H.S will be able to treat
people who genuinely need it rather than help the self inflicted.
2.
Zero tolerance to litter louts,street drinkers and potheads.


----------



## Dan B (30 Apr 2012)

1828644 said:


> usually end up sadly wasted?


This plan sounds more and more appealing


----------



## Paul J (30 Apr 2012)

All cycles to be registered (reg plate) and be subject to a fit for purpose inspection same as other road vehicles.

Cyclists to have mandatory 3rd party insurance.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (30 Apr 2012)

Paul J said:


> All cycles to be registered (reg plate) and be subject to a fit for purpose inspection same as other road vehicles.


To what end?



> Cyclists to have mandatory 3rd party insurance.


Ditto...


----------



## Boris Bajic (30 Apr 2012)

Paul J said:


> All cycles to be registered (reg plate) and be subject to a fit for purpose inspection same as other road vehicles.
> 
> Cyclists to have mandatory 3rd party insurance.


 
While both of the above may appear positive changes in the absence of human inertia, I believe that both would discourage potential new cyclists from entering the fray. I may be wrong.

However, I cannot think of a single instance in my 40+years of cycling and 30+ of driving when a road user has bemoaned the lack of cycle registration or cycle insurance - or indeed claimed that an issue they faced would have been solved by either measure.

I'm sure many road users can think of such an issue, but I can't.

All my children started to ride on the roads (accompanied) when they were about seven. How would I get insurance for an unguided seven-year-old missile on Her Majesty's Highway?

For all that, I think it would be good if the Police were empowered to confiscate any cycles they came across on the road that failed to conform to a set list of measures of mechanical readiness and in-place safety equipment. Not an annual MoT test... Just a published list of required condition and the authority to remove from the road any cycles that failed to conform.

However, if we added something like that to the list, then either absence of Hi-Viz or my choice of the dining-room wallpaper would have to go.


----------



## Paul J (30 Apr 2012)

GregCollins said:


> To what end?


 
So that motorists can report cyclists that do not obey the highway code just as easily as cyclists do etc.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (30 Apr 2012)

Paul J said:


> So that motorists can report cyclists that do not obey the highway code just as easily as cyclists do etc.


Oh.come.on. What are the polis going to do, come round and tell me off for not wearing hi-viz?

1) reporting errant drivers isn't easy in most places. It isn't even welcomed by polis in most places.
2) once reported only a tiny % of drivers get given a talking to/letter
3) of that tiny % only a tinier % get prosecuted

It's not as if having a registration plate acts as any sort of deterrence to drivers' law breaking.


----------



## Boris Bajic (30 Apr 2012)

Paul J said:


> So that motorists can report cyclists that do not obey the highway code just as easily as cyclists do etc.


 
I see there is some levelling of an imaginary playing field in this proposal, but it would make not one billionth of a smidgin of a difference to me as either a driver or a cyclist.

Like Greg Collins, I fail to see any benefit. 

A database would take squillions of hours to establish and maintain; plates would be endlessly transferred between bikes and fakes would be made. It would be hard to design a format both legible from a reasonable distance and not likely to get in the way of rack, mudguard, lights, bum etc....

I think this idea is unworkable. I recall as a 15-year-old in France riding a mobylette and not being required to have a licence or a bike with a registration plate. Does that system still exist in France? By law I had to wear a helmet, but didn't. As I recall, many moped riders went without.

Sorry, the last bit was OT, but it somehow reinforces the point about registering bicycles being unworkable and without benefit.


----------



## Boris Bajic (30 Apr 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Oh.come.on. What are the polis going to do, come round and tell me off for not wearing hi-viz?
> 
> 1) reporting errant drivers isn't easy in most places. It isn't even welcomed by polis in most places.
> 2) once reported only a tiny % of drivers get given a talking to/letter
> ...


 
Although I agree with you in the idea being unworkable, you'd be surprised how badly many of us would drive if not kept in check by having identifying markers on our vehicles.

Sure, many drivers break the law anyway... but you might be surprised by the number who would do so if anonymity were guaranteed.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (30 Apr 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> For all that, I think it would be good if the Police were empowered to confiscate any cycles they came across on the road that failed to conform to a set list of measures of mechanical readiness and in-place safety equipment. Not an annual MoT test... Just a published list of required condition and the authority to remove from the road any cycles that failed to conform.


 
only if they can instantly confiscate and crush motor vehicles they come across on the roads that fail to conform to a set list of measures of mechanical wotsit and in-place doodah (and as I'm Taliban; to include having _all_ bulbs working correctly.)


----------



## Boris Bajic (30 Apr 2012)

1829652 said:


> Very droll


 
Who are you calling a droll? :troll:


----------



## GrumpyGregry (30 Apr 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Although I agree with you in the idea being unworkable, you'd be surprised how badly many of us would drive if not kept in check by having identifying markers on our vehicles.
> 
> Sure, many drivers break the law anyway... but you might be surprised by the number who would do so if anonymity were guaranteed.


then I would ensure traffic police are equipped with RPG's.

But seriously, every one of the millions of people who have ever been given points and a fixed penalty by a camera sort of prove my point....


----------



## defy-one (30 Apr 2012)

GregCollins said:


> help me out... so I can understand your perspective properly, how many people did pedestrians or cyclists kill or seriously injure in the last 10 years compared with motorists?



So cyclists or pedestrian does something to cross the path of a car doing 30/40 mph and it's the drivers fault? 
People assume a zebra crossing gives them the right to set foot into the road - silly irresponsible behaviour


----------



## theclaud (1 May 2012)

530kam said:


> So cyclists or pedestrian does something to cross the path of a car doing 30/40 mph and it's the drivers fault?
> People assume a zebra crossing gives them the right to set foot into the road - silly irresponsible behaviour



People have the right to set foot in the road whether there is a zebra crossing or not. And long may it remain that way.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 May 2012)

530kam said:


> So cyclists or pedestrian does something to cross the path of a car doing 30/40 mph and it's the drivers fault?
> *People assume a zebra crossing gives them the right to set foot into the road - silly irresponsible behaviour*


which part do you think is an assumption?


----------



## Paul J (1 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Oh.come.on. What are the polis going to do, come round and tell me off for not wearing hi-viz?
> 
> 1) reporting errant drivers isn't easy in most places. It isn't even welcomed by polis in most places.
> 2) once reported only a tiny % of drivers get given a talking to/letter
> ...


 
Whats the problem with cyclists being treated like other road users? If cyclists had a registered vehicle that could be traced back to an owner maybe they wouldn't jump red lights, ride on the pavement etc. Pedestrians as well as other road users would have an easy way of identifying a cycle and reporting it. Like all legislation it costs money to introduce but making cyclists have insurance and an anual inspection has to be a good thing for the masses.


----------



## Brandane (1 May 2012)

530kam said:


> So cyclists or pedestrian does something to cross the path of a car doing 30/40 mph and it's the drivers fault?


 
530kam, I see you've only been a member on here for a couple of weeks. You are finding out, as I did, that there are a sizeable number of members on here who see the internal combustion engine as the antichrist. They won't be happy until we are all back using horses and carts to keep Tescos shelves full.

In the meantime, to all of those other members here who enjoy their cars/motorbikes/speedboats/aeroplanes/whatever, as well as cycling; make hay while the sun shines! Burn as much of the stuff as you can while it is still affordable . One day the cycle fascists will have their way and the oil WILL run out, so we might as well enjoy it while we can.

PS. I was at the Pedal on Parliament cycle in Edinburgh last weekend, campaigning for better cycling facilities on ther roads. So I can see things from both sides; pity that some cyclists are so narrow minded that they can't tolerate other road users invading "their" space. They do none of us any favours.


----------



## Paul J (1 May 2012)

Well said Brandane


----------



## srw (1 May 2012)

Paul J said:


> Whats the problem with cyclists being treated like other road users? If cyclists had a registered vehicle that could be traced back to an owner maybe they wouldn't jump red lights, ride on the pavement etc. Pedestrians as well as other road users would have an easy way of identifying a cycle and reporting it. Like all legislation it costs money to introduce but making cyclists have insurance and an anual inspection has to be a good thing for the masses.


 I drop a large rock on your head after stamping on it first.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 May 2012)

Paul J said:


> *Whats the problem with cyclists being treated like other road users?* If cyclists had a registered vehicle that could be traced back to an owner maybe they wouldn't jump red lights, ride on the pavement etc. Pedestrians as well as other road users would have an easy way of identifying a cycle and reporting it. Like all legislation it costs money to introduce but making cyclists have insurance and an anual inspection has to be a good thing for the masses.


motorists have to be licensed. cyclists and pedestrians are on the roads as of right. will you make pedestrians wear reg plates too so they can be reported when they cross the road and inconvenience a motorist?

Cars are registered. Cars jump red lights, cars park on the pavement illegally. Cars are often driven uninsured. Get all that enforced and maybe your idea would hold water.


----------



## Boris Bajic (1 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> motorists have to be licensed. cyclists and pedestrians are on the roads as of right. will you make pedestrians wear reg plates too so they can be reported when they cross the road and inconvenience a motorist?
> 
> Cars are registered. Cars jump red lights, cars park on the pavement illegally. Cars are often driven uninsured. Get all that enforced and maybe your idea would hold water.


 
Mr Greg Collins, I agree with you completely that the mandatory registration and insurance of cycles has no legs, but I disagree with your final point.

Of course car drivers break the law. We all do. The registering and insuring bicycles would not suddenly become worthy of consideration if all drivers became angels overnight. It is a non-swimmer of an idea regardless of any comparison with driver behaviour.

I think we can sometimes weaken our argument by appearing to point at drivers, expecting them to obey the law at all times.

I think the idea of registering and insuring all cycles stinks in twelve different keys, but to make its consideration dependent on the behaviour of a separate group of road users is flawed.

I still think my two proposed changes (see OP) are best... but that's a part of my personality that my friends and family have been trying to deal with for decades.


----------



## Paul J (1 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> motorists have to be licensed. cyclists and pedestrians are on the roads as of right. will you make pedestrians wear reg plates too so they can be reported when they cross the road and inconvenience a motorist?
> 
> Cars are registered. Cars jump red lights, cars park on the pavement illegally. Cars are often driven uninsured. Get all that enforced and maybe your idea would hold water.


 
About time cyclists HAVE Insurance rather than mouth off how other road users are always to blame. The "It's my right" for cyclists attitude is starting to wear a bit thin. About time laws surrounding cyclists are modernised. Cyclists jump red lights, ride on the pavement, etc, etc. They are not above the law.


----------



## ianrauk (1 May 2012)

Paul J said:


> About time cyclists HAVE Insurance rather than mouth off how other road users are always to blame. The "It's my right" for cyclists attitude is starting to wear a bit thin. About time laws surrounding cyclists are modernised. Cyclists jump red lights, ride on the pavement, etc, etc. They are not above the law.


 

The majority of cyclists I know and ride with do have insurance. And can imagine a fair few on here do also.


----------



## Paul J (1 May 2012)

ianrauk said:


> The majority of cyclists I know and ride with do have insurance. And can imagine a fair few on here do also.


 
I expect the ratio of uninsured cyclists in the UK is greater than the number that are.


----------



## ianrauk (1 May 2012)

Paul J said:


> I expect the ratio of uninsured cyclists in the UK is greater than the number that are.


 

You are indeed probably correct. However I can imagine that the cyclists that do 'mouth off' are more probable the ones with insurance.

Pavement cyclists, rlj'rs, they don't give a stuff at how they ride so why would they give a stuff about insurance?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 May 2012)

Paul J said:


> I expect the ratio of uninsured cyclists in the UK is greater than the number that are.


I doubt that given that virtually every householder with insurance, and their family, will have some level of 3rd party/public liability cover.


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (1 May 2012)

Why has this thread degenerated into an insurance/registration debate?


----------



## srw (1 May 2012)

Paul J said:


> About time cyclists HAVE Insurance rather than mouth off how other road users are always to blame. The "It's my right" for cyclists attitude is starting to wear a bit thin. About time laws surrounding cyclists are modernised. Cyclists jump red lights, ride on the pavement, etc, etc. They are not above the law.


Question - What's the point of third-party liability insurance?
Answer - To ensure that innocent members of the public who are injured or who have property damaged by the policy-holder have some way of getting compensation.

Question - Why is third-party liability insurance compulsory for drivers of motor vehicles?
Answer - Because hundreds of thousands of drivers every year cause damage to property or injury to third parties and because many of those injuries are life-threatening or result in death.

Question - Why is third-party liability insurance not compulsory for riders of bicycles?
Answer - Because the number of riders of bicycles who cause damage to property or injury to third parties each year is vanishingly small - measured in the tens, not even the hundreds.

Question - Why do most people on here have third-party liability insurance?
Answer - Because they recognise that there is a risk, albeit a very small risk, of them causing injury to third parties or damage to property.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 May 2012)

Paul J said:


> About time cyclists HAVE Insurance rather than mouth off how other road users are always to blame. The "It's my right" for cyclists attitude is starting to wear a bit thin. About time laws surrounding cyclists are modernised. Cyclists jump red lights, ride on the pavement, etc, etc. They are not above the law.


 
A splendidly driver-centric view of the world.

No one has said, in this thread, sfaik, that cyclists are above the law. Their lawbreaking represents a lower order of risk to other road users than that of motorists and therefore the legal framework reflects that. Going for some lowest common denominator "let's treat everyone like motorists" approach simply ignores the KSI outcomes of each class of road user. After all, motorists kill pedestrians, when the pedestrians are on the pavement minding their own business, at a rate at least a couple of orders of magnitude greater than cyclists do.

If someone operates a ton-and-a-half piece of equipment in a public place in such a way that injures another person how are they _not_ to blame?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 May 2012)

ianrauk said:


> You are indeed probably correct. However I can imagine that the cyclists that do 'mouth off' are more probable the ones with insurance.
> 
> Pavement cyclists, rlj'rs, they don't give a stuff at how they ride so why would they give a stuff about insurance?


Ian you fool, don't you see? Stick a reg plate on the back of their bike and they'll all become good law abiding citizens just like motorists and motorcyclists and never brake a law again. It's obvious.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Of course car drivers break the law. We all do.


 
No we don't. (except on motorways)



> I think we can sometimes weaken our argument by appearing to point at drivers, expecting them to obey the law at all times.


 
They (and I, - shock horror I drive a car and sometimes a motorcycle too) drive heavy machinery at speed in public places that contain people I care about. I really do expect them to obey the law at all times. I have a right to expect that, or to expect that if they don't their license will be endorsed and ultimately taken away surely?


----------



## Paul J (1 May 2012)

This is another thread of lets slag of the car or anyone who disagrees about cyclists. Looks like I will bow out of this one and leave you lot to it to play with your two wheels and ban the motor car with the line Cause it's my right.


----------



## srw (1 May 2012)

Paul J said:


> This is another thread of lets slag of the car or anyone who disagrees about cyclists. Looks like I will bow out of this one and leave you lot to it to play with your two wheels and ban the motor car with the line Cause it's my right.


Alternatively you could read what's been written with an open mind.

I'm particularly interested in the "bikes must have third-party liability insurance" discussion. Which bit of my argument to you disagree with?


----------



## defy-one (1 May 2012)

I am a pedestrian, cyclist and motorists. I enjoy all 3 equally. I am wary of other road users and have been driving for 28 years, so I'm well aware of the dangers I pose as a motorist and as a cyclist.
My earlier post was to highlight the motorist should not automatically be seen as the bad guy when he comes in contact with a pedestrian or cyclist. Of course those road users are going to come off worse and the driver has a large amount of metal to protect him.
Some folks here appear to have the view that a cyclist/pedestrian couldn't possibly be the cause of a road traffic incident and that was the point I was trying to highlight.

To those anti car cyclist I would say wake up!


----------



## lukesdad (1 May 2012)

Anyway, to get back on track. What I want to know is, when are these bleeding Roman CTC members Centurions comming to fix my road


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 May 2012)

530kam said:


> I am a pedestrian, cyclist and motorists. I enjoy all 3 equally. I am wary of other road users and have been driving for 28 years, so I'm well aware of the dangers I pose as a motorist and as a cyclist.
> My earlier post was to highlight the motorist should not automatically be seen as the bad guy when he comes in contact with a pedestrian or cyclist. Of course those road users are going to come off worse and the driver has a large amount of metal to protect him.
> Some folks here appear to have the view that a cyclist/pedestrian couldn't possibly be the cause of a road traffic incident and that was the point I was trying to highlight.
> 
> To those anti car cyclist I would say wake up!


I'm a pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist and motorist. my enjoyment of all four, especially the first three is spoiled by the antics of, speed and frequency of encounter with the last two. No one here has the view that cyclists/pedestrians can do no wrong so not sure why you're arguing against a point no one has made.

To those who are pro-car cyclists I would say wake up!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 May 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Anyway, to get back on track. What I want to know is, when are these bleeding Roman CTC members Centurions comming to fix my road


I ask you brothers, what have the Romans EVER done for us?


----------



## Boris Bajic (1 May 2012)

Paul J said:


> This is another thread of lets slag of the car or anyone who disagrees about cyclists. Looks like I will bow out of this one and leave you lot to it to play with your two wheels and ban the motor car with the line Cause it's my right.


 
Paul, many of us are car owners. I am a keen driver and have been accused on this forum of being a pro-car troll. 

As a non-wearer of helmets I've been accused of having an obviously pro-helmet agenda. It matters not.

You will get some quite stridently pro-bicycle views on this sort of forum, but most members are quite reasonable.

Many of the posts in this thread disagreeing with mandatory registration and insurance have been reasonable and well argued.

I imagine the great majority of this forum's members are also drivers, motorcyclists or both. There are also some HGV and PSV drivers on here.

Relax and enjoy the debate. Everyone else is always wrong, anyway.


----------



## Boris Bajic (1 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> No we don't. (except on motorways)
> 
> 
> 
> They (and I, - shock horror I drive a car and sometimes a motorcycle too) drive heavy machinery at speed in public places that contain people I care about. I really do expect them to obey the law at all times. I have a right to expect that, or to expect that if they don't their license will be endorsed and ultimately taken away surely?


 
You have the right to expect the Moon to be made of cheese if you want.

I agree with you that mandatory registration and insurance are not the answer, but I'm amazed that you expect drivers and motorcyclists to obey the law at all times. Have you ever cycled along the A40 between Brecon and Llandeilo on a dry, summer Sunday? The slower bikes ride along some sections at 100 mph. That's where I taught all my children to ride on the open road.

We can expect whatever we want, but that's not the same as requiring it or getting it.


----------



## Boris Bajic (1 May 2012)

srw said:


> I drop a large rock on your head after stamping on it first.


 
What is the advantage of stamping on the rock before dropping it?


----------



## Boris Bajic (1 May 2012)

1831233 said:


> So what level of compliance do you want?


 
I'm not sure I have any views on that.

As a recently reformed speeder and user of a hand-held mobile, I do not have a lofty moral high horse to speak from.

I once rode from Brighton to London in the early hours on a track bike (but with lights, plates and tax disc) that I'd just built. I'd forgotten to wire up the instrument lights, so I had no idea how fast I was going. I just rode it home on the stop. I found out later what speed I must have been doing. I am very naughty and have no right to expect or want any given level of compliance with any law.

Can I guess? 47%? Or maybe "more than some but not as much as quite a lot".


----------



## srw (1 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> What is the advantage of stamping on the rock before dropping it?


Take a look at the signature of the person I was quoting.


----------



## Boris Bajic (1 May 2012)

srw said:


> Take a look at the signature of the person I was quoting.


 
Aaaah.... I now see what you were doing there.

I felt very witty for about two minutes and now I feel like a fool again.

This is a frequent issue for me.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> You have the right to expect the Moon to be made of cheese if you want.
> 
> I agree with you that mandatory registration and insurance are not the answer, but I'm amazed that you expect drivers and motorcyclists to obey the law at all times. Have you ever cycled along the A40 between Brecon and Llandeilo on a dry, summer Sunday? The slower bikes ride along some sections at 100 mph. That's where I taught all my children to ride on the open road.
> 
> We can expect whatever we want, but that's not the same as requiring it or getting it.


The law requires it, I expect it, the polis are there to ensure it is got.


----------

