Yet again - Cyclist Killed in London

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Kursk

I hope the kids enjoy the bikes we bought them for Christmas. Now as soon as we get their license, tax, MOT and insurance sorted out, they'll be able to use them .

did you cough up for lights for the bikes and high viz vests ?

[Osem]

and helmets.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

did you cough up for lights for the bikes and high viz vests ?

Oops. That'll be licenses, MOT, insurance, tax, lights, hi-vis vests, plastic helmets, a suit of armour, elbow pads, knee pads, and a first aid kit for when they don't get noticed by gormless car drivers .

Tell you what, as parity between road users seems to be an important issue to car drivers, as soon as you all have a valid license, MOT, insurance, tax, hi-vis vests and helmets, I'll join in. There again I don't need insurance, I'll be covered by your third party insurance even if I bump into you.

The World's not fair is it?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Oops. That'll be licenses, MOT, insurance, tax, lights, hi-vis vests, plastic helmets, a suit of armour, elbow pads, knee pads, and a first aid kit for when they don't get noticed by gormless car drivers .

Tell you what, as parity between road users seems to be an important issue to car drivers, as soon as you all have a valid license, MOT, insurance, tax, hi-vis vests and helmets, I'll join in. There again I don't need insurance, I'll be covered by your third party insurance even if I bump into you.

The World's not fair is it?

the survival rate for bumping my car is pretty low bring your own priest

Originally Posted by Pierre

it's not nonsense, what is nonsense is letting people with no training whatsoever onto our ever increasing dangerous roads.

A licence is proof of meeting a minimum required standard of proficiency to operate a bicycle on the road.

I didn't say anything about insurance, however a wise person would insure themselves 3rd party at least, lest you risk losing a few quid if you cause an accident, or in a worse case scenario, you house.

Enforcement, you don't need to enforce it. I have a driving and motorbike licence, I've had them check by the police once in 27years.

But if the police should ever want to check it, i have it.

If you don't want to do any of this then, stick to tow paths and green lanes.

Of course it is ,making rules and not having a means to enforce them is a nonsense .The main point though is that applying restrictions like licences,tests and insurance to what is essentially a recreational pastime will lead to more people using public transport and cars on already overcrowded roads .It makes more sense to restrict cars in towns and cities than to restrict a non polluting and healthy mode of transport

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

the survival rate for bumping my car is pretty low bring your own priest

Originally Posted by martyh

The main point though is that applying restrictions like licences,tests and insurance to what is essentially a recreational pastime will lead to more people using public transport and cars on already overcrowded roads .It makes more sense to restrict cars in towns and cities than to restrict a non polluting and healthy mode of transport

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by martyh

Of course it is ,making rules and not having a means to enforce them is a nonsense

we have police, pcso, and council officers, all with the ability to issue on the spot fines.

So we can enforce it.

The main point though is that applying restrictions like licences,tests and insurance to what is essentially a recreational pastime

Who mentioned mandatory insurance? I didn't. But you'd wise to have some.

If it's a recreational past time, then find a toe path, green lane, or cycle route somewhere and enjoy your pastime.

I don't think some guy cycling down the A20 at 6.30 in the morning is doing it for fun though.

will lead to more people using public transport and cars on already overcrowded roads .It makes more sense to restrict cars in towns and cities than to restrict a non polluting and healthy mode of transport

No it makes sense to build cycle routes. Bicycles and cars should not be sharing the same piece of Tarmac.

If they do, there person on the bicycle should be proficient in riding it in traffic, therefore they must be trained and tested and licenced.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I don't think some guy cycling down the A20 at 6.30 in the morning is doing it for fun though.

Causing a traffic jam. that's fun to him

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Gary L

Causing a traffic jam. that's fun to him

no problem there's a device you can fit to your bumper that gets them up to 70 mph

[techguyone]

Originally Posted by Pierre

No it makes sense to build cycle routes. Bicycles and cars should not be sharing the same piece of Tarmac.

If they do, there person on the bicycle should be proficient in riding it in traffic, therefore they must be trained and tested and licenced.

THIS is the most sensible comment made so far. Despite what the Lycra Mafioso would have you believe, it's always wise to segregate massively differing forms of transport. In an ideal world you'd widen the pavements some and have shared foot/cycle paths, though I suppose the cyclists wouldn't like that solution either.

Originally Posted by Pierre

we have police, pcso, and council officers, all with the ability to issue on the spot fines.

So we can enforce it.

.

No you can't ,how do you enforce little jonny riding 40yrds to the shop ,at what age should the test be applicable ,where would it be applicable and how would you identify those who took the test and those who didn't

Who mentioned mandatory insurance? I didn't. But you'd wise to have some.

quite a few in this thread

I don't think some guy cycling down the A20 at 6.30 in the morning is doing it for fun though.

No probably not but the same guy possibly cycles on tow paths and cycle routs in his spare time and should he be forced to get insurance and pass tests then he will most likely give up cycling to work and use public transport ,now times that by a few hundred thousand and that means more buses on the road forcing more cars out of city centres and adding to congestion

No it makes sense to build cycle routes. Bicycles and cars should not be sharing the same piece of Tarmac.

Agreed more cycle routes are needed but at the moment the only space to found is either by removing car lanes or narrowing pedestrian footpaths and I know which will sacrificed.

If they do, there person on the bicycle should be proficient in riding it in traffic, therefore they must be trained and tested and licenced.

Which just takes us around in circles,most cyclists in city centres do know the rules but there will always be idiots ,as there are with car drivers the big difference is that the cyclist idiot is usually the one to lose their life the idiot car driver is usually the one that costs the cyclist their life

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by techguyone

THIS is the most sensible comment made so far. Despite what the Lycra Mafioso would have you believe, it's always wise to segregate massively differing forms of transport. In an ideal world you'd widen the pavements some and have shared foot/cycle paths, though I suppose the cyclists wouldn't like that solution either.

i find they will not use cycle paths they use the road

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

no problem there's a device you can fit to your bumper that gets them up to 70 mph

My fog horn usually just makes them wobble and fall off

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by martyh

No you can't ,how do you enforce little jonny riding 40yrds to the shop

If little Johnny is riding to the shop in a dangerous manner on the road and is being a danger to himself and other vehicles then if a passing policeman, PCSO or council warden can stop him and ask to see his proficiency licence.

If he hasn't got one, they can fine his parents or confiscate his bike, or just give him a warning however they see fit

at what age should the test be applicable

I reckon 12

where would it be applicable

applicable to anyone that wishes to ride a bicycle on the road with other traffic.

and how would you identify those who took the test and those who didn't

Same way a police officer identifies those that have a drivers licence and those that don't, you ask them for it.

quite a few in this thread

well I haven't , but I would recommend they had some

No probably not but the same guy possibly cycles on tow paths and cycle routs in his spare time and should he be forced to get insurance

for the last time I haven't said they must have insurance

and pass tests then he will most likely give up cycling

or he may just spend half a day and get his licence.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

i find they will not use cycle paths they use the road

I find that they are not breaking any laws in doing so.

Originally Posted by Gary L

My fog horn usually just makes them wobble and fall off

I find I mostly wobble and fall off in those little red boxes the Council have painted for us. You know, the ones at the head of the traffic queue. All my life I seem to be in front of a tailback; I don't know why .