Cyclists to be awarded equality with motorists.

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

As discussed some way upthread, I remain to be convinced that road speed limits don't currently apply to cyclists anyway, so unless Grant Whatshisnamenow has counsel's opinion that says otherwise, I think this is just another culture war front being opened up.

With a side order of dead cat.

 

[awkwardbydesign]

Shapps has gone even more barmy than last week

Cyclists could face speed limits and may need number plates, reports say

Have lower speed limits been introduced since the last update of rules for cyclists? Are cycles and e-bikes now capable of higher speeds?

 

[stevec67]

As discussed some way upthread, I remain to be convinced that road speed limits don't currently apply to cyclists anyway.

You may so remain, however it's the case. There's no speedo on a bike, no requirement to fit it, so how is the rider to know their speed? It's covered by the "furious and reckless" bit, if a speed limit is being broken to that extent.

Similarly it's an offence to be drunk in charge of a bike, but you can't be breathalysed to prove it. You have to be demonstrably drunk, rather like a pedestrian isn't allowed to be "drunk" and can be charged accordingly. However you can't breathalyse a pedestrian who's had 5 pints and call them "drunk" unless they are falling about.

 

[foxwelljsly]

As discussed some way upthread, I remain to be convinced that road speed limits don't currently apply to cyclists anyway, so unless Grant Whatshisnamenow has counsel's opinion that says otherwise, I think this is just another culture war front being opened up.

With a side order of dead cat.

The Royal Parks have had to apply special rules over and above those available in the highway code and existing legislation to make the 20mph speed limit in Richmond park enforcible for cyclists. This is explicitly because speed limits on the road ONLY apply to motorised vehicles.

I very much doubt they would go to this considerable trouble for nothing.

Parks Regulations
The Royal Parks have special rules. A fully copy (called the Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations) is posted at each gate, but some of the main points for cyclists to note are:

• speed limits on the park roads apply to pedal cycles as well as other vehicles
• you must have lights on your bike if you are cycling after dark
• you can only cycle on the roads and shared pedestrian and cycle trails - not over the grass or in the woods

 

[foxwelljsly]

Have lower speed limits been introduced since the last update of rules for cyclists? Are cycles and e-bikes now capable of higher speeds?

Unless, like the Royal Parks above, special dispensation has been sought, there are no enforcible speed limits for cyclists. I would suggest that hurtling down Shooter's Hill at 50 mph probably constitutes some sort of offence, but it's not speeding.

 

[foxwelljsly]

I would say that equal treatment and fairness before the law is at least as important as either of those.

I completely agree that anyone found guilty of killing or injuring someone through any form of negligence should face the same maximum tariff.

However, it's a complete nonsense to apply the same level of legislative risk mitigation (insurance, registration, speed limits) to 100kg of rider and bike capable of going 35mph as we do to a driver and car weighing two tons and capable of 150 mph.

Rather provocatively, as @Woodface has pointed out, the OP's thread title suggests the latter, whilst the thread is actually about the former. Which I suspect may be the cause of much of the heated disagreement on this thread.

 

[littleaudioco]

Stick a couple of number plates on a bicycle and you not only have two working brakes, but also air brakes too. I really can’t see any cyclist wanting number plates - not because of the reasoning, but because it’s worse than having a bell on your bike.

Why are all laws aimed at road users? If we’re trying to get silly new laws going, how about one where pedestrians can only use a mobile phone while stationary. That’ll stop most pedestrians blindly walking into roads and causing accidents…

 

[clivem2]

I don't know how licensing & insurance could work for kids on bikes....

As for 100kg riders..in all but a few cases, they need to diet as well as exercise so let's encourage them!

 

[RoA]

Avid Road cyclist here (and IAM holder with Cat D & A licenses).

As an ex professional driver, car driver and heavy bike owner I am in support for compulsory cycle insurance, helmet and cycle light laws. Some form of bike tagging/chips to confirm current insurance is reasonable. I'd go further and think a reasonable road tax system would be good too. 10 or 15 quid a year is not going to bankrupt folks. This could/should go towards creating more cycling specific infrastructure

I am insured fully comprehensive to the tune of the full (new) replacement value of my (expensive) bike and accessories/clothing. I have legal support, abroad cover etc. -

This costs me almost as much as my car insurance but gives me peace of mind should I be involved in accident due to my own or someone else's fault. It does not need cost as much for most though. Basic insurance is available for much less than I pay.

I have had some close calls and have friends who suffered the consequences of not being insured.

If you use public roads you have a responsibility to obey laws regardless of mode of transport, be adequately insured and contribute towards the upkeep of such.

How often do I see young D***h*** riding a bike without lights or helmet, often using a phone, riding down the road here in Bournemouth/Dorset. Even after dark. It's almost as if it is the cool thing to do for teenagers (and drug addicts). Makes me wonder how many of those bikes were nicked.

Things need to change. We live on a small, over populated island with often bad roads and growing number of road users.

It's dangerous out there and we have to take responsibility for our contributions to it.

Everyone does.

Where it gets complex is in the enforcement. Police resources are already over stretched in many areas. Clearly, new capability would need to be created. This has implications for everyone, Tax payers. Still, looking at the current situation that would probably be self funding (!) with on spot fines, confiscation (and auctioning off) of uninsured bikes etc.

 

[stevec67]

Unless, like the Royal Parks above, special dispensation has been sought, there are no enforcible speed limits for cyclists. I would suggest that hurtling down Shooter's Hill at 50 mph probably constitutes some sort of offence, but it's not speeding.

Furious and Reckless Cycling covers that.
A schoolmate of mine was pulled over on his bike by the police for 30-odd mph on a local hill on the edge of town and given a ticking off, he was justifiably immensely proud of this and we were all suitably jealous. It wasn't a very big hill, cracking 30 was a good trick.

Stick a couple of number plates on a bicycle and you not only have two working brakes, but also air brakes too. I really can’t see any cyclist wanting number plates - not because of the reasoning, but because it’s worse than having a bell on your bike.

Mount them lengthways, like the plates that used to be on the front of motorbikes.

Why are all laws aimed at road users? If we’re trying to get silly new laws going, how about one where pedestrians can only use a mobile phone while stationary. That’ll stop most pedestrians blindly walking into roads and causing accidents…

Yes, and see also wheelbarrows, shopping trolleys, pushchairs, etc.

Avid Road cyclist here (and IAM holder with Cat D & A licenses).

As an ex professional driver, car driver and heavy bike owner I am in support for compulsory cycle insurance, helmet and cycle light laws.

You would remove 90-odd % of kids' bikes from the road at a stroke and most adult bikes. This would make cycling even more of a minority sport and even worse treated on the road.

How often do I see young D***h*** riding a bike without lights or helmet, often using a phone, riding down the road here in Bournemouth/Dorset. Even after dark. It's almost as if it is the cool thing to do for teenagers (and drug addicts). Makes me wonder how many of those bikes were nicked.

So you're going to combat people breaking current laws with more laws? How will that work?

Things need to change. We live on a small, over populated island with often bad roads and growing number of road users.

It's dangerous out there and we have to take responsibility for our contributions to it.

Everyone does.

Correct.

 

[RoA]

Strange attitude. We just tolerate stupid road behaviour ... .

If you or someone in your family has an accident as a consequence of this ... how would you react?

As to 'removing' most bikes from the road ... only the irresponsible ones and quite rightly so. People enjoying cycling will carry on doing so safe in the knowledge that they are covered should something unfortunate occur.

What makes 'kids bikes' different? Are they less in danger or less likely to cause an incident?

 

[kensalriser]

The country is facing so many issues that need urgent attention it boils my piss to see the government wasting its time on ludicrous peripheral wedge issues like this. It's an absolute dereliction of duty.

 

[RoA]

The country is facing so many issues that need urgent attention it boils my piss to see the government wasting its time on ludicrous peripheral wedge issues like this. It's an absolute dereliction of duty.

Actually, this particular subject could (should) affect many. Perhaps not important to you but ... .

If it makes you feel better though, this will no doubt quickly be brushed under a No10 very expensive carpet so don't fret.

 

[Cav]

Avid Road cyclist here (and IAM holder with Cat D & A licenses).

As an ex professional driver, car driver and heavy bike owner I am in support for compulsory cycle insurance, helmet and cycle light laws. Some form of bike tagging/chips to confirm current insurance is reasonable. I'd go further and think a reasonable road tax system would be good too. 10 or 15 quid a year is not going to bankrupt folks. This could/should go towards creating more cycling specific infrastructure

I am insured fully comprehensive to the tune of the full (new) replacement value of my (expensive) bike and accessories/clothing. I have legal support, abroad cover etc. -

This costs me almost as much as my car insurance but gives me peace of mind should I be involved in accident due to my own or someone else's fault. It does not need cost as much for most though. Basic insurance is available for much less than I pay.

I have had some close calls and have friends who suffered the consequences of not being insured.

If you use public roads you have a responsibility to obey laws regardless of mode of transport, be adequately insured and contribute towards the upkeep of such.

How often do I see young D***h*** riding a bike without lights or helmet, often using a phone, riding down the road here in Bournemouth/Dorset. Even after dark. It's almost as if it is the cool thing to do for teenagers (and drug addicts). Makes me wonder how many of those bikes were nicked.

Things need to change. We live on a small, over populated island with often bad roads and growing number of road users.

It's dangerous out there and we have to take responsibility for our contributions to it.

Everyone does.

Where it gets complex is in the enforcement. Police resources are already over stretched in many areas. Clearly, new capability would need to be created. This has implications for everyone, Tax payers. Still, looking at the current situation that would probably be self funding (!) with on spot fines, confiscation (and auctioning off) of uninsured bikes etc.

There is no such thing as "Road Tax".

All of what you suggest would be unenforced because it would be, in practice, unenforceable.

I would not comply nor would any of my bike riding mates.

 

[Woodface]

I completely agree that anyone found guilty of killing or injuring someone through any form of negligence should face the same maximum tariff.

However, it's a complete nonsense to apply the same level of legislative risk mitigation (insurance, registration, speed limits) to 100kg of rider and bike capable of going 35mph as we do to a driver and car weighing two tons and capable of 150 mph.

Rather provocatively, as @Woodface has pointed out, the OP's thread title suggests the latter, whilst the thread is actually about the former. Which I suspect may be the cause of much of the heated disagreement on this thread.

The new measures which Shapps is proposing are mirrored by one country, North Korea. It’s so depressing constantly arguing with ill informed morons.

 

[kensalriser]

Actually, this particular subject could (should) affect many. Perhaps not important to you but ... .

If it makes you feel better though, this will no doubt quickly be brushed under a No10 very expensive carpet so don't fret.

Cycling is very important to me, but there is not a national issue here in need of urgent attention. Your proposals are unnecessary and unworkable and boil down to making stuff that's already unlawful more unlawful without any thought of practical enforcement, routine behaviour for this infantile government.

The country's not overpopulated by the way. Have you ever been outside a town or city?

 

[Space is the Place]

There is no such thing as "Road Tax".

All of what you suggest would be unenforced because it would be, in practice, unenforceable.

I would not comply nor would any of my bike riding mates.

@ ROA... £15 to tax a bike? what if you have six bikes? would i need to tax each one?
Or does £1600 i already pay per year on other motorized vehicles cover the my "road tax" for a bicycle?

Let me get my Calculator out and do some simple maths...

Shapps (or whatever he's calling himself these days) + any of his own ideas = nonsensical, stupidity.

 

[Woodface]

Avid Road cyclist here (and IAM holder with Cat D & A licenses).

As an ex professional driver, car driver and heavy bike owner I am in support for compulsory cycle insurance, helmet and cycle light laws. Some form of bike tagging/chips to confirm current insurance is reasonable. I'd go further and think a reasonable road tax system would be good too. 10 or 15 quid a year is not going to bankrupt folks. This could/should go towards creating more cycling specific infrastructure

I am insured fully comprehensive to the tune of the full (new) replacement value of my (expensive) bike and accessories/clothing. I have legal support, abroad cover etc. -

This costs me almost as much as my car insurance but gives me peace of mind should I be involved in accident due to my own or someone else's fault. It does not need cost as much for most though. Basic insurance is available for much less than I pay.

I have had some close calls and have friends who suffered the consequences of not being insured.

If you use public roads you have a responsibility to obey laws regardless of mode of transport, be adequately insured and contribute towards the upkeep of such.

How often do I see young D***h*** riding a bike without lights or helmet, often using a phone, riding down the road here in Bournemouth/Dorset. Even after dark. It's almost as if it is the cool thing to do for teenagers (and drug addicts). Makes me wonder how many of those bikes were nicked.

Things need to change. We live on a small, over populated island with often bad roads and growing number of road users.

It's dangerous out there and we have to take responsibility for our contributions to it.

Everyone does.

Where it gets complex is in the enforcement. Police resources are already over stretched in many areas. Clearly, new capability would need to be created. This has implications for everyone, Tax payers. Still, looking at the current situation that would probably be self funding (!) with on spot fines, confiscation (and auctioning off) of uninsured bikes etc.

Just plain ridiculous.

Why should I pay VED when a Tesla doesn’t?

Every point you make is just baseless, extra points for ‘I’m a cyclist too trope’.

Having working lights is already covered in existing regulation etc etc.

In the round bikes do no harm, massively contribute to well being, health & are environmentally friendly.

Enjoy your heavy bike use.

 

[laughingboy]

Avid Road cyclist here (and IAM holder with Cat D & A licenses).

As an ex professional driver and heavy bike owner I am in support for compulsory cycle insurance, helmet and cycle light laws. Some form of bike tagging/chips to confirm current insurance is reasonable. I'd go further and think a reasonable road tax system would be good too. 10 or 15 quid a year is not going to bankrupt folks. This could/should go towards creating more cycling specific infrastructure

I am insured fully comprehensive to the tune of the full (new) replacement value of my (expensive) bike and accessories/clothing. I have legal support, abroad cover etc.

I don't know the figures on this, but is there really is a significant problem with damage to cars because of accidents caused by uninsured cyclists?

Let's say there is (which I doubt) and it amounts to claims of £100m per year. Wouldn't a better way to fix this be to mandate a small surcharge (say £1.50 per year for the 40m licensed vehicles in the UK) on the insurance premiums of cars to create a central claim pool? Any insurance claims for accidents caused by uninsured cyclists could be funded via this central pot, which all insurers could call on.

In general though, these sort of proposals fail when you stop to think about them.

The small problems are which vehicles do these apply to - bikes, scooters, e-scooters, hoverboards, skates, heelys? If kids break the rules, who pays the fine? Parents? Which parent? Who goes to jail if they refuse to pay? And so on. Bikes need to be checkable at a distance, like car registrations, so who does the checking? Is this how we want to our police to use their time? If no-one checks, a significant minority will not register or insure their bikes, and in any accident the cyclist will just leave the scene. So, the people you want to catch aren't affected, but the law-abiding are. And so on.

The big problem is that they run counter to what we need as a country:

• we need to incentivise active lifestyles (NHS costs, etc), not disincentivise them.
• we need to reduce waste (not incentivise people to junk their little-used bikes).
• we need to encourage kids to cycle to school to reduce rush-hour congestion.
• we need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
• we need to keep costs of living down, not create new standing charges for people.

 

[Woodface]

I don't know the figures on this, but is there really is a significant problem with damage to cars because of accidents caused by uninsured cyclists?

Let's say there is (which I doubt) and it amounts to claims of £100m per year. Wouldn't a better way to fix this be to mandate a small surcharge (say £1.50 per year for the 40m licensed vehicles in the UK) on the insurance premiums of cars to create a central claim pool? Any insurance claims for accidents caused by uninsured cyclists could be funded via this central pot, which all insurers could call on.

In general though, these sort of proposals fail when you stop to think about them.

The small problems are which vehicles do these apply to - bikes, scooters, e-scooters, hoverboards, skates, heels? If kids break the rules, who pays the fine? Parents? Which parent? Who goes to jail if they refuse to pay? And so on. Bikes need to checkable at a distance, like car registrations, so who does the checking? Is this how we want to our police to use their time? If no-one checks, a significant minority will not register or insure their bikes, and in any accident the cyclist will just leave the scene. So, the people you want to catch aren't affected, but the law-abiding are. And so on.

The big problem is that they run counter to what we need as a country:

• we need to incentivise active lifestyles (NHS costs, etc), not disincentivise them.
• we need to reduce waste (not incentivise people to junk their little-used bikes).
• we need to encourage kids to cycle to school to reduce rush-hour congestion.
• we need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
• we need to keep costs of living down, not create new standing charges for people.

There are around 1.5 million uninsured drivers on the road, kind of makes all this bleating about cyclists ridiculous. It’s just a smoke screen for a non-issue. If we can’t take uninsured cars off the road with their magic number plates…?