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 used to live in Washington DC, which had at
least thirteen registration schemes in various parts of the
metropolitan area.

(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). Ken seems to
want bike registration plates so that cameras can catch bikes
automatically, but the question is, how large does a plate have to be to
be visible for this, and where are we going to put it?

I really don't think the expense of the scheme would be worth the
benefit in reduced offences, especially when it is likely to put people
off cycling. A similar argument has been waged in Australia where
helmets are mandatory in some places - such a law may put people off
cycling, which in turn may lead to higher accident rates as fewer cycles
on the road leads to a lower awareness by other road users. The
long-term health benefits of cycling are also an important
consideration, especially when more and more people are likely to suffer
from illnesses such as heart disease.

Another point mentioned in the US scenarios is that some people just
won't bother to register. The "worst" offenders are those least likely
to register and therefore stand just as little chance of being caught as
they do now.

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.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

In article . com,
() wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article . com,
(Neillw001) wrote:

Jack Taylor wrote:

[Ken's bike lunacy]

It would be totally impractical to enforce, just how many
bicycles are there in the London area that would be affected?
Anyone can buy a bicycle from anywhere without need to register
it. It would require an Act of Parliament to make it legal and
such a thing would never be passed.

Ken is talking of a Private Bill, something London has every
year. But it could well fall foul of the Parliamentary procedures
because of its effect on people outside London.

Colin, I understand what you say about impracticality of "local"
legally-enforced bike registration; i.e. it would have to be
national or nothing.

But, does Cambridge University not still have a mandatory College
resistration system for students' bicycles? I remember my number -
Q283, from all those years ago! I'm not sure what the sanction was
for failing to register and/or display one's number.

The system exists but it seems to be more use for recovering stolen
bikes than anything else. The numbers are not remotely visible on CCTV
either.

Moreover, all resident Members of the University were required to
obtain the Motor Proctor's written consent before having motor
vehicle in the City. I wonder whether that still applies.?

It seems to me that fewer students cycle these days despite motor
controls which continue as strongly as ever, now backed by the Planning
Authority and applied to ARU and private education-linked housing too.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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?

JRS: In article
, dated Sat, 29 Jul 2006 10:38:00 remote, seen in
news:uk.transport.london, Colin Rosenstiel posted
:
In article . com,
(Neillw001) wrote:

Jack Taylor wrote:

[Ken's bike lunacy]

It would be totally impractical to enforce, just how many bicycles
are there in the London area that would be affected? Anyone can buy a
bicycle from anywhere without need to register it. It would require
and Act of Parliament to make it legal and such a thing would never be
passed.

Ken is talking of a Private Bill, something London has every year. But
it could well fall foul of the Parliamentary procedures because of its
effect on people outside London.

It has no effect on people outside London. It does have an effect on
outsiders who enter London, temporarily or permanently - just the same
as British law applies in Britain, Scottish Law applies ... .

If Cambridge decides also to require registration and number plates, the
Council will have to determine whether London plates are to be valid in
Cambridge, and /vice versa/. And, AIUI, according to present
regulations, Councillors with any interest in or knowledge of the
situation will be unable to participate. Does that also apply to
Mayors, for example of London?

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/ - see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

Martin Underwood wrote:
Boltar wrote in message
If you say they are then perhaps we should call push scooters and
skateboards
vehicles too? No? Why not?

As soon as a vehicle uses the road, it becomes a road vehicle for the time
that it is on the road.

Well I don't consider a bicycle a vehicle. IMO a vehicle is something
that is
self propelled. A bicycle does not fall into this category any more
than
roller skates do. If you wish to take the line that *anything* on the
road
should be licensed then I await the fun and games when pedestrians have

to hang a license plate around their necks when they cross the road and

horses have to have one tied to their tails.

Don't be an ass. A lot of people cycle because they don't drive.

And they shouldn't have points on their non-existent licence, although such
points should be held in reserve in case the person gets a licence later
(within the validity period of the points). But if they *do* have a licence,
cycling offences (on the road) should constitue endorsable points on it.

Aside from the fact that this is not going to be the slightest
deterrent to
a cyclist who has no intention of ever getting a car license all they'd
have to do would be to get a license based on a different address if
they did want to get an unendorsed license. Unless you want to link it
to NI or similar in which case its hello George Orwell.

B2003

In article ,
(Dr John Stockton) wrote:

JRS: In article

, dated Sat, 29 Jul 2006 10:38:00 remote, seen in
news:uk.transport.london, Colin Rosenstiel
posted
:
In article . com,
(Neillw001) wrote:

Jack Taylor wrote:

[Ken's bike lunacy]

It would be totally impractical to enforce, just how many
bicycles are there in the London area that would be affected?
Anyone can buy a bicycle from anywhere without need to register it.
It would require and Act of Parliament to make it legal and such a
thing would never be passed.

Ken is talking of a Private Bill, something London has every year.
But it could well fall foul of the Parliamentary procedures
because of its effect on people outside London.

It has no effect on people outside London. It does have an effect
on outsiders who enter London, temporarily or permanently - just the
same as British law applies in Britain, Scottish Law applies ... .

Not if it's a local Private Bill. Parliament won't allow the Mayor of
London to promote such legislation affecting outsiders' rights without
their right to be heard.

If Cambridge decides also to require registration and number
plates, the Council will have to determine whether London plates are
to be valid in Cambridge, and /vice versa/. And, AIUI, according to
present regulations, Councillors with any interest in or knowledge of
the situation will be unable to participate. Does that also apply to
Mayors, for example of London?

You misunderstand the law of councillors' prejudicial interests. And
Cambridge would never be so stupid to think of going down that road, I
can assure you.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 30 Jul 2006 09:56:58 -0700, "Boltar"
wrote:

should be licensed then I await the fun and games when pedestrians have
to hang a license plate around their necks when they cross the road and

Can you really imagine any politician suggesting that Britons should
have to carry government registration documents with them at all times
when out in public? Oh, hang on...

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 29 Jul 2006 04:08:49 -0700, "
wrote:

But, does Cambridge University not still have a mandatory College
resistration system for students' bicycles? I remember my number -
Q283, from all those years ago! I'm not sure what the sanction was for
failing to register and/or display one's number.

Yes it does (I'm told), and I've no idea what the penalty is, or even
if the situation ever arises.

In My Day, the only practical use of the numbers seemed to be for
returning stolen/lost/abandoned/homeless bikes. Most people applied
them with Tippex or similar, so this probably isn't what the Mayor had
in mind.

Someone I knew at Cambridge got sent a police(?) letter regarding a
fine for cycling without lights, and made an official declaration that
he knew nothing about it all - he reckons a foreign student we knew
who was a bit of a prat must have been stopped and then given his
name, just before going home!

Moreover, all resident Members of the University were required to
obtain the Motor Proctor's written consent before having motor vehicle
in the City. I wonder whether that still applies.?

Yes.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

In article ,
(Dr John Stockton) wrote:

just the same
as British law applies in Britain,

What is this "British Law" - I'm not aware of any British law.

--
Paul Cummins

**FREE** mobile phones, with FREE line rental
http://www.gstgroup.co.uk/

"Arthur Figgis" ] wrote in message
...
On 29 Jul 2006 04:08:49 -0700, "
wrote:

But, does Cambridge University not still have a mandatory College
resistration system for students' bicycles? I remember my number -
Q283, from all those years ago! I'm not sure what the sanction was for
failing to register and/or display one's number.

Yes it does (I'm told), and I've no idea what the penalty is, or even
if the situation ever arises.

In my day the fine for most offences was six shillings and eight pence.
More severe offences warranted thirteen shillings and four pence.

Moreover, all resident Members of the University were required to
obtain the Motor Proctor's written consent before having motor vehicle
in the City. I wonder whether that still applies.?

Yes.

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/p...tor/index.html
and page 196 of http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/so_ch02.pdf
(covers motor vehicles & cycles)
--
David Biddulph