Something bad is coming........

poweredbyidris

Rolf F wrote:

I'm up for bicycle number plates as long as, in all fairness, pedestrians have to have numberplates as well. I mean, they step into the road, knock you off your bike and then sidle off without giving you their pedestrianing insurance details. I'm outraged.
The only exception to this should be where pedestrians do not at any point step into the road since logically number plates should only be applied to all road users whether on foot, bike or car.

As a complete aside to the main topic (but with the above in mind) someone pointed out to me the other day that if and when we get driverless cars, there will have to be a widespread implementation of jaywalking laws to stop pedestrians merely walking out into the road to cross, knowing that the cars will have to stop for them. Cities would be gridlocked.

rolf_f

PoweredByIdris wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

I'm up for bicycle number plates as long as, in all fairness, pedestrians have to have numberplates as well. I mean, they step into the road, knock you off your bike and then sidle off without giving you their pedestrianing insurance details. I'm outraged.
The only exception to this should be where pedestrians do not at any point step into the road since logically number plates should only be applied to all road users whether on foot, bike or car.

As a complete aside to the main topic (but with the above in mind) someone pointed out to me the other day that if and when we get driverless cars, there will have to be a widespread implementation of jaywalking laws to stop pedestrians merely walking out into the road to cross, knowing that the cars will have to stop for them. Cities would be gridlocked.

The gridlock wouldn't matter though as the vehicle users could just work while the car is stuck. The car interior could effectively be more like an office than a car. Of course, then people might realise that it is just better then to stay at home and work and not have a car, driverless or not. Not sure driverless cars are really the solution to anything much.

slowbike

Rolf F wrote:

The gridlock wouldn't matter though as the vehicle users could just work while the car is stuck. The car interior could effectively be more like an office than a car. Of course, then people might realise that it is just better then to stay at home and work and not have a car, driverless or not. Not sure driverless cars are really the solution to anything much.

You're assuming the occupant of the driverless car can use it to work in as well as get to work.
It won't work for those ppl who have to physically be at their place of work - IT doing a server install or physical network build? Barister representing a client in court, Judge listening to that nonsense ...

I think driverless cars will be a vast improvement once they become mainstream - as much as I've enjoyed driving, it would be quite nice just to be able to sit back, enjoy a tea/coffee and let the car do the work. Get a self driving motorhome and you could put the kettle on too ...

Numberplates/registrations for bikes - no - can't see any use TBH - those of us who are law abiding will still be law abiding - those of us who aren't will find a way around it. All it will do is create a new revenue scheme for another government dept and empty the pockets for the rest of us ..

bendertherobot

Carlton and his followers continue to be annoyed and are mobilising all sorts of calls, complaints and boycotts.

Meanwhile the MSM, who were going to blow this story wide open on their front pages appear not to care one iota about it.

awavey

it has made it into the Sun and Daily Mail now at least, albeit mostly carbon copy of the PA piece...personally Im more worried about Jesse Norman "the cyclists friend" (tm) MP latest bit in the grauniad.

"UK may consider electric vehicle subsidy to increase cycling"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... se-cycling

as it specifically states they are considering whether cyclists should be forced to wear helmets and high-visibility clothing as part of this review, and they will be "led by the evidence"...

which given he claims the evidence is the government spend 1.2billion pound on walking and cycling so spend £6 per head on cycling, which if you do the maths is actually more like £3.12 per head, and still parrots the line "trippled cycling spending" because no one ever calls them out on it :roll: you can see the kind of quality of evidence the government likes dealing with.

Ben6899

And what happens if you refuse to wear hi vis or a helmet? Do you get an on the spot fine? Made out to whom? We don't carry ID in the UK.

Most - including me - would just carry on as normal. Don't worry about it.

bendertherobot

awavey wrote:

it has made it into the Sun and Daily Mail now at least, albeit mostly carbon copy of the PA piece...personally Im more worried about Jesse Norman "the cyclists friend" (tm) MP latest bit in the grauniad.

"UK may consider electric vehicle subsidy to increase cycling"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... se-cycling

as it specifically states they are considering whether cyclists should be forced to wear helmets and high-visibility clothing as part of this review, and they will be "led by the evidence"...

which given he claims the evidence is the government spend 1.2billion pound on walking and cycling so spend £6 per head on cycling, which if you do the maths is actually more like £3.12 per head, and still parrots the line "trippled cycling spending" because no one ever calls them out on it :roll: you can see the kind of quality of evidence the government likes dealing with.

That's the stuff to attack, not a 75 question puff piece from Halfords.

bendertherobot

Ben6899 wrote:

And what happens if you refuse to wear hi vis or a helmet? Do you get an on the spot fine? Made out to whom? We don't carry ID in the UK.

Most - including me - would just carry on as normal. Don't worry about it.

It's unworkable. What about off road? What about where your shared use paved trail crosses a road? It's nonsense, unworkable.

pblakeney

Cars are obliged to have number plates. Does that stop them breaking the law, or diving illegally? No. Pointless, but if it will shut them up...

Ben6899

bendertherobot wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

And what happens if you refuse to wear hi vis or a helmet? Do you get an on the spot fine? Made out to whom? We don't carry ID in the UK.

Most - including me - would just carry on as normal. Don't worry about it.

It's unworkable. What about off road? What about where your shared use paved trail crosses a road? It's nonsense, unworkable.

Agreed. And what constitutes "hi-vis"? Full fluoro? Highlight accents? What percentage of the garment has to be reflective?

Totally unworkable.

bendertherobot

PBlakeney wrote:

Cars are obliged to have number plates. Does that stop them breaking the law, or diving illegally? No. Pointless, but if it will shut them up...

No, but it does allow them to be traced, as much help as that is.

There's no evidence, RLJ'ing aside, that cyclists are committing wholesale traffic breaches and need to be traced. Even the Alliston type cases, the cyclist stops, is arrested etc. Even on RLJ'ing, it's far lower than anecdote suggests and lower at most junctions than cars, from memory (they did one at Vauxhall)

As to High Vis etc, they could well require a BS standard, Rapha will be thrilled.

Ben6899

bendertherobot wrote:

As to High Vis etc, they could well require a BS standard.

Imagine!

rick_chasey

Would be a public health disaster.

bendertherobot

Ben6899 wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

As to High Vis etc, they could well require a BS standard.

Imagine!

Can you imagine the head scratching befuddlement in Whitehall when the first high vis helmeted cyclists gets killed?

Ben6899

bendertherobot wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

As to High Vis etc, they could well require a BS standard.

Imagine!

Can you imagine the head scratching befuddlement in Whitehall when the first high vis helmeted cyclists gets killed?

Unfortunately, yes.

awavey

Rick Chasey wrote:

Would be a public health disaster.

which the minister would no doubt put in the somebody elses problem in-tray, I dont for a minute believe the real practicalities or impacts of those kinds of clumsy decisions are ever thought out across Whitehall departments, they often arent even in the same one. So the impact of creating more artificial barriers to getting on a bike and riding it wont even be considered, they are narrowly focussing just on safety and laws,

and it will become a politicial judgement, no -ones going to tell 45million odd drivers they need to change their behaviours to drive more considerately, they all think they are super safe as it is, or add more laws and punishments that juries wont ever use.

whilst there are what 2million or so people regularly cycling, how much of a fuss can they kick up when a good chunk of them think hiviz and helmets are a spiffing idea already, and one of those appears to be the minister in charge of making the decision else he'd have already ruled it out as pointless waste of time even considering it, remember hes a cyclist too as he keeps reminding us.

I genuinely dont believe they are going to spend however long looking at this and come back and go nope everythings fine as it was, theyll want a we introduced this change to make you all safer headline from it.

Moonbiker

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_h ... by_country

Compulsory helmet wouldn't surprise me.

Hi vis & numberplates alot less chance.... but its easily to underestimate there stupidity.

rick_chasey

Compulsory helmets?

F*ck that. That'd kill pretty much 2/3rds of those quick short rides that are too long for a walk but overkill in a car.

I'm not walking around with a helmet in town, and I bloody love cycling.

pblakeney

bendertherobot wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Cars are obliged to have number plates. Does that stop them breaking the law, or diving illegally? No. Pointless, but if it will shut them up...

No, but it does allow them to be traced, as much help as that is.

There's no evidence, RLJ'ing aside, that cyclists are committing wholesale traffic breaches and need to be traced. Even the Alliston type cases, the cyclist stops, is arrested etc. Even on RLJ'ing, it's far lower than anecdote suggests and lower at most junctions than cars, from memory (they did one at Vauxhall)

As to High Vis etc, they could well require a BS standard, Rapha will be thrilled.

As I said, pointless but almost the last of my "tick the boxes". Insurance? Yes. License? Yes. Helmet? Yes. Road Tax? No emissions, no tax. Plate? If need be, MOT? My bike is serviced much more regularly than my car. Can't see how that would work.

tgotb

Rolf F wrote:

Not sure driverless cars are really the solution to anything much.

Country pubs!

Also, going to the airport, when you don't want to risk missing your plane due to public transport delays, put your life in the hands of a crazy lunatic minicab driver, or pay a fortune for airport parking. Adding an extra day to your skiing holiday by driving through the night to get there, but not missing out on a night's sleep. Driving any long journey without having to stop for rest breaks. Reducing accidents - by the time driverless cars become mainstream, I suspect they will be safer than driver-operated cars.

But mainly country pubs...

pblakeney

TGOTB wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Not sure driverless cars are really the solution to anything much.

Country pubs!

Also, going to the airport, when you don't want to risk missing your plane due to public transport delays, put your life in the hands of a crazy lunatic minicab driver, or pay a fortune for airport parking. Adding an extra day to your skiing holiday by driving through the night to get there, but not missing out on a night's sleep. Driving any long journey without having to stop for rest breaks. Reducing accidents - by the time driverless cars become mainstream, I suspect they will be safer than driver-operated cars.

But mainly country pubs...

Infinity charge batteries?

pangolin

PBlakeney wrote:

TGOTB wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Not sure driverless cars are really the solution to anything much.

Country pubs!

Also, going to the airport, when you don't want to risk missing your plane due to public transport delays, put your life in the hands of a crazy lunatic minicab driver, or pay a fortune for airport parking. Adding an extra day to your skiing holiday by driving through the night to get there, but not missing out on a night's sleep. Driving any long journey without having to stop for rest breaks. Reducing accidents - by the time driverless cars become mainstream, I suspect they will be safer than driver-operated cars.

But mainly country pubs...

Infinity charge batteries?

And potties

kingstongraham

What do they meant by hi-viz? I can see the value in wearing more reflectives in the dark - they are massively more visible to other road users at night.

Fluorescent just isn't that much more visible than other colours at any time (if at all). Except all black, which is a choice I would never make.

As long as it is evidence based like the nice minister promises....

veronese68

Indeed, hi viz just needs to contrast with the surroundings. When surrounded by people in yellow a bright blue stands out. There are times when black may be more visible, not many I grant you. I think there are so many people in hi-viz that we are becoming conditioned to it and don't tend to pay it as much attention.

tgotb

Fair points about the rest stops - I was thinking gas-guzzler, though rapid charging technology will hopefully move on. Takes me a lot less time to have a quick wee and jump back in the car than it does to refresh myself to the point where I can get behind the wheel and concentrate for another few hours. I've done a lot of 12-24 hour road trips, and the limiting factor is always the driver...

KingstonGraham wrote:

What do they meant by hi-viz? I can see the value in wearing more reflectives in the dark - they are massively more visible to other road users at night.

Fluorescent just isn't that much more visible than other colours at any time (if at all). Except all black, which is a choice I would never make..

The one I can't get my head round is the dark grey Proviz jacket. Lights up like nothing else when illuminated by headlights at night; in gloomy daylight it's effectively the same colour as the road...

kleinstroker

Made the Daily Fail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/cars/article-4992728/Should-bicycles-number-plates-MOT-tests.html

bendertherobot

That's surprisingly balanced, even the comments section says it's ridiculous.

By balanced I mean not wholly DM sided.

kleinstroker

Yeah, I was surprised by the comments, not too shouty from the taxi brigade

pblakeney

bendertherobot wrote:

That's surprisingly balanced, even the comments section says it's ridiculous.

By balanced I mean not wholly DM sided.

My favourite one.

"Cyclists should be banned altogether unless you¿re 5.
Learn to drive or catch a bus. Lazy f-ckers".

elbowloh

PBlakeney wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

That's surprisingly balanced, even the comments section says it's ridiculous.

By balanced I mean not wholly DM sided.

My favourite one.

"Cyclists should be banned altogether unless you¿re 5.
Learn to drive or catch a bus. Lazy f-ckers".

Yeah, the person cycling is the lazy one.
The logic on that is astounding.