Dave Arquati wrote:
Jeremy Parker wrote:
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Apparently, the Mayor is now in favour of bike user/vehicle
registration, and wants a private bill put through Parliament to
achieve this.

I see from the Times of Friday 28th July that Ken Livingstone is
proposing that bikes, and their owners, be required to be registered.
I can live with that.

I can't. The whole idea is completely ridiculous. But then I'm
strongly against biometric ID cards too. The issue is both cases is
the same - a desire by the state to inconvenience everyone so that law
enforcement is easier. Absolute identity is unnecessary for law
enforcement. It is only necessary to establish identity between the
offender and the defendant for each offence.

(snip fascinating reading on US experiences of bike registration)

The complicated nature of the schemes you describe seems to demonstrate
the futility of such a scheme here. One of the key problems seems to be
that registration of bikes doesn't in itself actually achieve anything
(other than some statistics about bike owners).

The goal here is to reduce traffic offences by cyclists. The preferred
method is to catch offending cyclists and punish them. There are two
ways to achieve this - manually (by having police or traffic wardens out
and about catching them) or automatically (using cameras).

All registration would achieve is diverting police effort from
enforcing real offences to enforcing compliance with registration.

Police priorities are not always well-chosen, but on the whole they
realise that red light jumping by cyclists is not worthy of as much
effort as red light jumping by motorists, for example.

Would anyone care to argue that motoring offences are at an acceptably
low level? Enforcement of speed and red lights is still treated as a
game, with a slap on the wrist if you are dozy enough not to spot a
bright yellow camera. Elsewhere, 90% of drivers treat speed limits as
advisory.

The idea would not achieve its objectives, and would dramatically
reduce cycling if enforced effectively - just like that other
half-baked anti-cycling idea, compulsory cycle helmets.

If Ken genuinely wants to reduce pavement cycling and red light
jumping by cyclists, he will:

- install Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs) for cyclists at all traffic lights
- fund National Standards cycle training for all children, all adult
cyclists who want it, and all cyclists caught committing an offence
- exempt cyclists from all one ways unless signs specifically say
otherwise
- stop councils building off-road cycle 'facilities' where the road is
perfectly OK to cycle on, or could be made so with lower traffic speeds
- employ many more traffic policeman, and give them these priorities,
in this order:
-- wrongly registered and uninsured motor vehicles
-- all forms of dangerous driving, especially where it endangers
cyclists or pedestrians
-- universal compliance with speed limits
-- use of mobile phones while driving
-- red and amber light jumping
-- violation of ASLs
-- once compliance on these is largely achieved, and only then,
they can get heavy about cyclists' offences.

This programme would achieve a more cycle-friendly road network, and
cyclists capable of using it responsibly and safely. With more
responsible cyclists, the irresponsible ones will stand out, and maybe
the media will stop the nonsense that cyclists should be criticised as
a class rather than for their own individual actions.

My opinion is that a "soft" publicity-based campaign against antisocial
cycling would be far more effective. It wouldn't put people off cycling
(and could even be designed to encourage it by highlighting how you have
a lot of control over your own safety, a factor which puts many people
off cycling) and would be far more cost-effective.

Agree totally. It is barely possible that Ken's threat is meant to be
part of this.

Colin McKenzie

--
On average in Britain, you're more likely to get a head injury walking
a mile than cycling it.
So why aren't we all exhorted to wear walking helmets?