Plan to force cyclists to fit number plates

[Lace Neil Singer]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...er-plates.html

On one hand, could work. I for one am sick and tired of idiot cyclists in my home town thinking they own the road; jumping red lights, riding on the pavements and, ignoring the cycle path, cycling in the middle of the lane in one of the worst roads in the town and causing accidents. These "lycra louts" deserve to be hit with the book for breaking the law.

On the other hand, I don't see how this can be policed. Also, is this going to apply to the under eighteens, or even, under eights too? XD

[crashhelmet]

This is one of those things that's a great idea on paper, but I fail to see how well it can be enforced. Whether it's an athlete on a training ride or a kid on their BMX, they still need to follow the rules of the road.

They'd have to create some sort of system that identifies the bike and the rider together. Otherwise, how do we know who actually rode the bike?

Will riders be cited for not having their ID?

Will licenses and/or safety classes be required?

[BlaqueKatt]

This is one of those things that's a great idea on paper, but I fail to see how well it can be enforced.

and it ends up costing on average 4x as much to administrate as it brings in.

pro and con arguments here(pdf)

it's been mandated by law since 1974 in san jose-22,000 bikes sold per year, $636 in revenue brought in in 2010-they dropped it(cost per bike is $3)

police were supposed to establish a license database where the information could be accessed to aid in recovering stolen bikes, they had not done so, telling the auditors they were too short-staffed. Michelle Mowery, senior bicycle coordinator with the LA Department of Transportation, said fee revenue there was insufficient to keep a readily accessible database that would be useful in recovering bicycles.

and from a cyclist perspective-the insanity of bicycle licensing laws

These "lycra louts" deserve to be hit with the book for breaking the law.

from the above link:

Many motorists believe that by licensing people on bikes, it will turn them into better road users. From obeying traffic laws to respecting other road users’ space. It is true that there are some pretty aggressive cyclists out there who run through stops signs, blaze through intersections without looking for traffic, and even disrespect pedestrians at crosswalks. I have to point out, though, that licensing these people will not change their behaviour, just as requiring people to pass a driving test and obtain a license to drive a car has not stopped some motorists from speeding, rolling through intersections instead of coming to a complete stop, not yielding to pedestrians, or worse still, crashing into each other.

[crashhelmet]

and it ends up costing on average 4x as much to administrate as it brings in.

pro and con arguments here(pdf)

it's been mandated by law since 1974 in san jose-22,000 bikes sold per year, $636 in revenue brought in in 2010-they dropped it(cost per bike is $3)


and from a cyclist perspective-the insanity of bicycle licensing laws

Huh.... I lived in San Jose for 5 years. I never knew that and never registered my bike. Whoops

[siead_lietrathua]

i don't think a bike registry is necessary. all it takes to nail them is a cop at a good location.
i live in an area that has several bike races, and therefore is a training ground for the entitled douchbags that participate in them the rest of the year*. all the local cops know they just have to park near certain corners, and pull them over as they blow the stop signs. and at $200 bucks a pop (sometimes in groups of 4 or more) it's worth putting an officer there to kill time between patrols/ calls.

*they congregate on corners, bike 4 across on the road, and stop to "rest" on hilltops and blind corners where they cannot be passed safely. there are also country roads, so we're talking narrow and no lanes/ bike paths marked.

[fireheart17]

One common argument pushed by a number of people is that because they don't pay car registration, they are basically not entitled to use the road as a result.
Every single time, they are quickly shut down by the hundreds of people who point out that they have a car (2-3 cars in some cases) and use the bike to keep themselves healthy!

[Lace Neil Singer]

Can't see how healthy it is getting hit with a lorry. Seriously, I don't have anything against the respectful majority who cycle on the roads nicely and don't cause any trouble. But there are that few who cause accidents and who ruin the image for everyone playing by the rules. For example:

* The cretin who, while cycling on the pedestrian half of the cycle path collided with an old lady. She broke her hip.

* The cyclist who tried to overtake me on the inside while I was making a turn on my motorbike, while not wearing any protection whatsoever.

*The cyclist who cut up a double decker bus and was only saved from becoming a red stain on the road by the quick wits of the bus driver who made an emergency stop to avoid hitting him.

I have to point out, though, that licensing these people will not change their behaviour, just as requiring people to pass a driving test and obtain a license to drive a car has not stopped some motorists from speeding, rolling through intersections instead of coming to a complete stop, not yielding to pedestrians, or worse still, crashing into each other.

Yeah, and laws against murder don't stop people killing each other, but that's no reason to not have those laws in place.

[protege]

i don't think a bike registry is necessary. all it takes to nail them is a cop at a good location.

That's what the Homestead (PA) police department does. There's a trail that runs through the Waterfront shopping distance. Cyclists are supposed to stop at the intersections, and are supposed to yield to pedestrians--just like other traffic. But, the vast majority of cyclists down there didn't get it. So, the department had an officer sit at one of those stop signs. First day, he couldn't keep up with all the tickets. Naturally, the people cited wrote nasty letters to the newspapers about how it was "unreasonable" since stop signs and traffic laws were "just for cars"

[Panacea]

There's a lot of tension between cyclists and car drivers in my neck of the woods. There have been several cyclist fatalities over the past couple of years.

One case a drunk driver hit and killed a cyclist on a country road whose bike was well illuminated, he wore visible clothing, helmet, etc. She tried to claim she thought she hit a deer.

Every time one of these injuries happens, the anti bike crowd immediately blames the victim.

For every cyclist who runs a red light, there's a car driver who runs one. For every cycllst who is slow and hard to pass safely, there's a car driver of whom you can say the same thing.

I find it hypocritical of people who complain about cyclist behavior while ignoring the fact the same behaviors are prevalent in motor vehicle drivers.

The real issue is ass hattery on the roads. Whether you are on a bike or in a car, break the rules of the road and you deserve a ticket.

[siead_lietrathua]

For every cyclist who runs a red light, there's a car driver who runs one. For every cycllst who is slow and hard to pass safely, there's a car driver of whom you can say the same thing.

except with the car person, they can be fined and eventually lose their license if they keep doing stupid shit. whereas the biker cannot. plus, bikes are small and harder to see. then they do stupid shit, there is a greater chance of larger consequences because of that.
two cars of equal size hitting each-other because someone blew a red have an equal shot of survival. but the guy on the bike is toast.

granted, i still don't think bikes need to be licensed. but when the assholes in cars actually have a chance to lose the privilege of driving for being stupid, it's not really a comparison.

[s_stabeler]

personally, I think numberplates aren't a bad idea-it WOULD help catch h the asshats that give cyclists a bad name. As for licensing- depends. If the licensing is to teach good behaviour on the roads, then fine. if it's simply to cause less bicycles on the roads, then it's bad.

[Panacea]

except with the car person, they can be fined and eventually lose their license if they keep doing stupid shit. whereas the biker cannot. plus, bikes are small and harder to see. then they do stupid shit, there is a greater chance of larger consequences because of that.
two cars of equal size hitting each-other because someone blew a red have an equal shot of survival. but the guy on the bike is toast.

granted, i still don't think bikes need to be licensed. but when the assholes in cars actually have a chance to lose the privilege of driving for being stupid, it's not really a comparison.

I'm talking about the behaviors, though. The behaviors in both groups are identical, therefore I don't buy the ranting about cyclists.

And yes, the consequences for cyclists can be quite severe . . . much more so than losing their license.

[Lace Neil Singer]

then they do stupid shit, there is a greater chance of larger consequences because of that.
two cars of equal size hitting each-other because someone blew a red have an equal shot of survival. but the guy on the bike is toast.
.

Exactly. I never understand why these cyclists take so many stupid risks on the road. When I rode my motorbike, there were countless times when I was forced to yield the right of way to a dickhead in a car, or had to pull over to let past some prat who wanted to drive faster than the legal limit. I yielded and pulled over cuz of the small fact that I wanted to carry on living. Yet these lycra louts seem to think that they're invincible. They don't seem to have grasped the fact that if their stupidity causes them to collide with a car, it's not the driver who's going away from the scene in a box.

Also, a lot of cyclists seem to get equally defensive whenever someone suggests regulating bikes by saying, "Well, car drivers break the law!" That's just as bad as motorists blaming cyclists for accidents regardless of who's at fault. Can't we all accept that there's that small group of people known as "arseholes" who need to be stopped from breaking the law, regardless of whether they're in a car or on a pushbike?