Is Licensing for Cycles/Cyclists Inevitable?
Comments
-
prj45 wrote:Ah, but some people wil say the same about going out for a drive in their car...
There's a significant difference between the potential/real impact that cars and bicycles have on other road users - in addition, I'd suspect some individuals are overstating the negative impact cyclists are having on our roads......0 -
Had the Motor Car Act 1903 covered Velocipedes and horse/ox drawn vehicles we wouldnt' be having this discussion now! In fact I wonder why registration was considered necessary for motor vehicles for tracing purposes when identifying a rouge horse rider would have been considerably more difficult back then.
Plod: so Mrs Smith, can you provide a description of the horse and rider that ran you over please.
Mrs smith: It was brown, drawing a plain green trap and the driver was wearing a tweed Jacket.
Where as with the car:
So Mrs Smith: Was it Lord Such driving his red De Dion Boulton or Lord Farqhar on his Light Blue Argyle?Do Nellyphants count?
Commuter: FCN 9
Cheapo Roadie: FCN 5
Off Road: FCN 11
+1 when I don't get round to shaving for x days0 -
Far from being inevitable I would be amazed if licensing was introduced in the next few decades. The govt wont even introduce compulsory helmets because they recognise the impact it would have on the number of cyclists - I imagine compulsory licensing, testing, training or any other sort of barrier to just getting on a bike and riding would have an even greater impact.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
Brains wrote:I would also introduce a new level to the car driving licence.
You can not get a car driving licence until you have your motorbike licence.
You can not get a motorbike licence until you have your cycle licence
With each licence being a two part-er (one to learn and another say a year later to prove you are competent)
Only just seen this thread....
What a great idea.... if everyone had to ride a bike and motorbike on the road this would dramatically reduce road overcrowding as well. Why? Motorcyclists are around 20 times more likely to be killed per mile than car drivers.
From the Times last year;
"Published statistics from the Department for Transport suggested that motorcycling was just three times as dangerous as riding a bike which, in turn, seemed safer even than walking.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, The Times has now obtained figures showing that riding motorcycles is between 10 and 12 times deadlier than using pushbikes.
And pedal cyclists are three or four times more likely to be killed than pedestrians. "
Force everyone to ride motorbikes when they are younger (the peak age for deaths on motorbikes by the way!) and the car driving population will be dramatically reduced by the deaths of all of those on bikes. :roll:0 -
There are lies, damn lies and statistics.
My commute to work is 6 miles by motor vehicle or 5 by bicycle. It takes me (approx) 10 minutes my motorbike, 15 mins by car, 20 minutes by bicycle. I have had 2 accidents in 8 years, both by bicycle. Therefore cycling is the most dangerous form of transport. Hang on, i have spent longer cycling (80% of these commutes) so the number of accidents should allow for this (i.e. if i had spent as long commuting in other ways, would i also have had 2 accidents via each of these methods?). No, cycling is definitely the most dangerous since the journey covers the least mileage. Motorcycling is the ultimate form of transport since it is quicker than anything and as safe as driving. But i have given people lifts to work in the car, so total number of passenger miles makes driving the winner. Hooray! Although the negative health effects of adding a sedentary commute to my sedentary job will take years off my life. So cycling is the winner after all?
What headline would Sir like today?!
(And the highest number of motorcycle deaths actually occur between the ages of 25 and 34 by people with car licences suggesting that neither youth, nor lack of road awareness are the biggest factors.)0 -
Belv wrote:There are lies, damn lies and statistics.
Motorcycling is the ultimate form of transport since it is quicker than anything and as safe as driving.
What headline would Sir like today?!
(And the highest number of motorcycle deaths actually occur between the ages of 25 and 34 by people with car licences suggesting that neither youth, nor lack of road awareness are the biggest factors.)
The Gov't stats take into account the number of miles travelled;
2001 Fatalities per billion
passenger kilometres
Motor cycle/moped 112
Foot 48
Pedal cycle 33
Car 3
Van 0.9
SO for every Billion KM, 3 people will die in a car accident whereas 112 people will die on a motorbike!
Agree with your point about neither experience etc being a mojor factor. The major factor is the inherent unsafe nature of motorbikes (ie no protection in an accident).
PS I hold a full bike license
0 -
I won't try to pretend that riding a motorcycle is safer than... anything except scuba diving with sharks when you're bleeding, just that statistics are always skewed depending on what one is trying to prove: When discussing drink-driving statistics at work, a colleague (flippantly) suggested that if 9% of fatalities had been caused by drink driving, it was the 91% sober majority that were more dangerous!0
-
I think the idea of getting "staged" vehicle licenses would be excellent. After all motorbikes are probably the fastest way around in a densely populated area (a city centre), followed by the bike, when it comes to the rush hour.
I personally think the whole bike licensing scheme would be hugely expensive to organize and even more difficult (if not impossible) to enforce. How are they going to ensure EVERY bike has a license plate or similar method of identify? Bikes are much easier to build from scratch and change hands much easier then cars, the paperwork and admin alone would cost a fortune! Also at which point is this required, will it be based on bike size or rider age??0 -
Belv wrote:I won't try to pretend that riding a motorcycle is safer than... anything except scuba diving with sharks when you're bleeding, just that statistics are always skewed depending on what one is trying to prove: When discussing drink-driving statistics at work, a colleague (flippantly) suggested that if 9% of fatalities had been caused by drink driving, it was the 91% sober majority that were more dangerous!
What's it like working with Alistair Campbell?<a>road</a>0 -
Tom Butcher wrote:Far from being inevitable I would be amazed if licensing was introduced in the next few decades. The govt wont even introduce compulsory helmets because they recognise the impact it would have on the number of cyclists - I imagine compulsory licensing, testing, training or any other sort of barrier to just getting on a bike and riding would have an even greater impact.
The Government haven't introduced compulsory helmets because the evidence is at best equivocal and is insufficiently convincing to justify such a move....
But that's another thread.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
2001 Fatalities per billion
passenger kilometres
Motor cycle/moped 112
Foot 48
Pedal cycle 33
Car 3
Van 0.9
A bit off topic, but these stats have bothered me before. The statistic for pedestrians looks surprisingly high and the figure for cars surprisingly low. Isn't time is a factor? It takes far longer to walk a KM then to drive it, so there's more chance of you being hit during that KM. Here's what I mean.
1 billion KM is about 620 million miles.
At an average walking speed of 3mph this would take around 200 million hours to walk. That's 0.24 deaths per million walking hours.
At an average driving speed of (I'm guessing here) 50mph this would take 12 million hours. That's 0.25 deaths per million driving hours. Not much different to walking after all.
At an average cycling speed of 15 mph (come on - include those not on the forum ) this would take around 41 million hours. That's 0.805 deaths per million hours (now I'm scared!)
For motorbikes/mopeds, at an average of, say, 30mph, you get 5.6 deaths per million hours on the road!
See what I mean? Lies, damn lies and....we've heard it all before.
In any case I don't want to be riding a moped, but I feel a bit safer walking!
Am I stupid or does it make sense to look at it this was AS WELL as deaths per KM?0 -
but if there were statistics for the at fault party in Fatal accidents how many of them wouldn't be drivers, oh wait all of them it's the cars fault, my bad. :evil:Do Nellyphants count?
Commuter: FCN 9
Cheapo Roadie: FCN 5
Off Road: FCN 11
+1 when I don't get round to shaving for x days0 -
Brains wrote:You can not get a car driving licence until you have your motorbike licence.
You can not get a motorbike licence until you have your cycle licence
With each licence being a two part-er (one to learn and another say a year later to prove you are competent)
1. assumption here that as you get older you move on to a more comfortable, larger vehicle. A dodgy assumption for people to make, especially for cyclists - we'll be seen as childish or troublemakers (like now, but more so).
2. I would never have got a driving license as I had no interest in motorbikes. I only ever needed a car to carry my daughter, her friends and so I could get large items in the boot. Motorbikes are useless for this.
Why do people who ride motorbikes always think they are the centre of the universe? Not so - motorbikes are a hobby for most people who ride them - and useless for the majority of road-users.0 -
Dirk Van Gently wrote:Belv writ:lot of Mums who arrive half an hour early so that they can get a parking space rather than walk 15 mins each way!
And the Government wonders why there is an obesity crisis!!
Hands up? those on the forum who are obese? :-?
I'm a bit fat actually. While I ride a bike every day, I also eat and drink too much every day too.0 -
It won't happen, cos it would rightly be seen as an anti-environmental measure.
The only people banging on about this are a few loud-mouthed media types in London who get pissed off with lycra-louts jumping the lights and need to fill a few inches of column space in the daily mail.0 -
Jakes Dad wrote:Without having to register the bike and have a No plate like a motorised vehicle i cant really see how a system could work ?
Simon
Probably the same as all new monitoring methods form big brother microchipping bikes and something to do with DNA in the case of it being pilfered.
Cycling Proficiency should be part of the National Curriculum
and it would serve as a nice money earner for the government.
would you need different qualification for off road usage (rights of way education etc)Brought to you by:
Trix©orp Industries
For everything & anything pointless0 -
One word: enforcement
We did this at University (I studied Economics - many years ago) and concluded it was unenforceable and uneconomic
It's just a hill. Get over it.0 -
Not inevitable, impossible. We can't even police motor vehicles, why add bikes to the problem (limited police force and more bikes than we have people in the UK).prj45 wrote:Also, mandatory third party insurance.
More of us have that than we realise, check your house insurance, it probably covers you 3rd party (and if not CTC membership is about £30 a year, less if you opt out of the magazine, gives you 3rd party insurance and is woth it for the political clout of a cycling "union").0 -
0
-
For a thoroughly researched debunking of the value of licencing bicycles, read:
http://www.toronto.ca/budget2005/pdf/we ... ingcyc.PDF
I insist that no-one be allowed to post on this subject until they have taken a proper test on the contents and can demonstrate understanding of them and argue logically on the subject.
I assume that the moderator can find a sufficient number of people prepared to act as examiners. After they have demonstrated understanding the report and the capacity ot judge whether or not the forumer can argue logically, that is.
Of course, this would require that the examiners themselves meet the above standards, so BikeRadar would have to find a sufficient number....Organising the Bradford Kids Saturday Bike Club at the Richard Dunn Sports Centre since 1998
http://www.facebook.com/groups/eastbradfordcyclingclub/
http://www.facebook.com/groups/eastbradfordcyclingclub/0 -
As someone already said - motorists and their often-sh*te driving standards aren't even policed properly so how on earth would bike licensing be enforced ? simple answer is it wouldn't. So why bother ?0
-
Purveyor of sonic doom
Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
Fixed Pista- FCN 5
Beared Bromptonite - FCN 140 -
Hi All,
I don't think licensing will ever happen as it would be so costly to enforce and setup. I am sure the Police would not want to be stopping commuters dashing through traffic, kids and families going out for fun and the serious race/TT/Triathlon guys. How do you enforce it?! It is also anti-environment and I am sure that cyclists would have to fund this....after all it costs about £50 to get a CBT moped licence (even though part of the test is to take your moped off it's stand and put it back on the stand!). I would not pay to be tested on riding a bicycle and I am sure that new riders/younger people would not do it either. As for insurance - It is personal preference! I carry no insurance at all (aside my company life insurance) - however, I do intend to buy some when I get a new bike this year (I think it is a requisite of cyclesheme.)
Hence it is easier and more practical for most people to get a car!! Something the government is trying to kill off with huge fuel costs!
I say: Don't worry - it will never happen.......0 -
'Four in 10 motorbikes not taxed'
I wonder how many of those are off-road only and competition bikes? I'd love to see the Motogp at Donnington if all bikes had to be taxed - all the millions spent of aerodynamics and Rossi has to have a tax disc holder, insurance certificate and ruddy great rear number plate on the bike!
Am I the only one who thinks that England should be made a tax haven? 5% tax on £millions or 17.5% on £10 . . . . hmm . . . . do the maths, Gordon Brown!
If there is ever any cycle licensing how many of us would sign up and be law-abiding? Then think: how many of the no-lights, pavement riding red light jumpers would sign up? Like the firearms legislations, it would hit the law abiding but have no effect of those who don't give a damn and would carry on anyway!
One fine day in the middle of the night, two dead men got up to fight. Back to back they faced each other, drew their swords and shot each other.0 -
The real question is, "What problem are we trying to address?" --
If it's auto vs. bike interaction, licensing DRIVERS certainly hasn't solved the problem.
Dave Zabriskie has a foundation trying to increase awareness after he has been hit more than once, and Jason MacIntyre, Scottish time trialist, has just yesterday been killed by a van driver who claims he didn't see the rider.
Drivers eat, read (morning papers - watch next time you're in AM commuting traffic), put on make-up, tie ties, natter on mobile phones -- and even text on blackberries. No wonder they don't see riders -- damn amazing they can see the road ...
Certainly riders should have knowledge of (and live up to) the rules of the road. Our colleagues who flaunt lanes or stops do not do anyone any favors. As it stands today, every jurisdiction I can think of - from Aberdeen to ... well anywhere - the authorities managing traffic already have the laws and the ticket books to issues citations to cyclists for violations. In New Hampshire in the US, bikes are considered 'vehicles' already. Adding another bureaucracy will do nothing more than add expense to already burdened governments. To add licensing by legislation is a feel good measure for people who do not understand the issues.
A better approach would be for cyclists to engage in community outreach, club training for newbies to the road, school talks, help with a town recreation program for cyclists, and for clubs to have liaison with local police to identify issues and work together on solutions. If I were to stay any tighter to the right edge of the road, I may as well be riding rollers -- and still I have been clipped and had more close calls than I like to recall.
Sharing the road requires more effort than issuing a license that the ambulance crew can check after the car hits you.
/end of rant
Roadie in New Hampshire ...0 -
Where I live, licensing is done on a local local level, although many towns do not have a program. Many University campuses have their own programs as well. A rider brings the bike to the office with proof of ownership (a recipt, or an old sticker) fills out a form that includes make, color. basic type ("racing style", ATB, etc.) and serial number. Some forms may have a blank for you to add details, but it's not universal. Mostly it's for identification - to get it back from the police after it's been stolen and found. Yes some bargins may be had at police auctions, when they sell unclaimed bikes It's also a handy revinue-enhacement for Public Safety organizations, and it helps keep down the feral bike population at the Universities.
As far as traffic law enforcement goes, riders are now ticketed, fined etc. as if they were driving a car. Drunk on a bike is still "Driving Under Influence" and in my state has some hefty fines - including remedial driving lessons and potential incarceration.0
