Campaign calls for cyclists to hold insurance, pay road tax

sydthebeat

magicbastarder wrote: »

how would this be implemented? clearly said means of identification would be much smaller than on a car, rendering it probably ineffective.

Means of identification has already been suggested. it's this means of identification that I'm discussing here.

mickdw

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Unless it's the size of a car or motorbike number plate it would be ineffective. Peoples eyesight is bad when it comes to spotting cyclists as we know well. Also bikes would need one front and back. Number plates would possibly end up causing more damage to cars when filtering due to it being wider than the bike so another law would have to be changed to stop filtering and also the advance stop boxes would have to be removed to stop the temptation to filter. I can see exactly how this works now.

Hence my idea of identifier displayed on back on high viz vest. No need for plates at all and one on the back is plenty. Any cyclist making his get away having caused damage will have his back to you unless he peddles off backwards.

Roadhawk

Unlike my previous views, I dont believe taxing cyclists is the way forward. Making road/motor tax applicable to them is completely counter productive and pointless.

As for insurance...very simple...this should be optional.

I do however feel that licensing by means of a mandatory theory test should apply. The training could be undertaking in secondary schools...perhaps transition year. The license should apply to anyone over that age of 16. It makes sense that all people using vehicles have the same level of training on how to use a road. Each cyclist should also be required to have their license on them for identification purposes in the event of being issued with a fixed penalty notice. Accountability is fundamental in improving behavior towards safety.

ted1

mickdw wrote: »

Hence my idea of identifier displayed on back on high viz vest. No need for plates at all and one on the back is plenty. Any cyclist making his get away having caused damage will have his back to you unless he peddles off backwards.

And how often does it happen? Weigh up the pros and cons

tomasrojo

terrydel wrote: »

Is there any other country on the planet where this issue is even discussed, or seen as viable?

Switzerland had bicycle registration for a few decades but they got rid of it a few years back. Don't think anyone else ever had it.

New South Wales makes cyclists carry ID, but it's motivated mostly out of spite, as far as I can see, rather than addressing any particular problem.

Roadhawk

tomasrojo wrote: »

New South Wales makes cyclists carry ID, but it's motivated mostly out of spite, as far as I can see, rather than addressing any particular problem.

Spite of what? Surely the cyclists only needs to produce an ID to officials such as the Police. Without ID there is nothing stopping the cyclists giving false details. Is having an ID too much to ask?

tomasrojo

It's pretty much an attempt to suppress the number of cyclists (it came in train with a massive increase in fines), which isn't large to begin with. New South Wales is, allegedly, the worst place in the developed world to cycle, and they're keen to build on that.

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

Spite of what? Surely the cyclists only needs to produce an ID to officials such as the Police. Without ID there is nothing stopping the cyclists giving false details. Is having an ID too much to ask?

the gardai have the legal power to confiscate the bike if they believe a cyclist is given false details, IIRC.

are there any other pursuits where you have a legal requirement to carry ID? not including driving, as driving requires a licence, so the requirement is more to carry proof you are qualified to drive, rather than a requirement to prove your identity AFAIK.

Jawgap

Roadhawk wrote: »

Spite of what? Surely the cyclists only needs to produce an ID to officials such as the Police. Without ID there is nothing stopping the cyclists giving false details. Is having an ID too much to ask?

Likewise pedestrians - if cyclists, to aid the enforcement of road traffic legislation, are to be required to carry ID, why not pedestrians? I'd suggest they infringe more parts of the legislation more often than any other class of road user.

Plus as the ongoing points fiasco shows, making a class of road user carry id, even to prove their competency to operate their vehicle, is no guarantee of anything.

Leroy42

Has the size of the problem actually been calculated?

I mean, in my experience there are clearly aholes on bikes out there (with me possibly being one on occasion!) but we are talking about implementing a massive bureaucratic system to get fit all bikes with numbers plates and/or force all cyclists to wear personalised clothing with numbers on the back.

On top of that a whole new industry around cycling insurance needs to be developed, which will have to be new as we can see from the massive price rises in motor insurance that the current one is not fit for purpose.

We then need to bring in new legislation to make it an offence to be without either insurance or reg numbers and then set aside a system on which to adequately police that such that is it actually a deterrent rather than just another piece of useless legislation. Together with the large cost involved in actually framing the legislation, the civil servants time, dail time etc you then have the additional expense of the obligatory Supreme Court case taken to tackle the new legislation.

That is quite a bit of time and money, and I have not seen the extent of the problem it is supposed to resolve. For that is the bottom line. There are plenty of things that we should fix in society, but there simply is not the political will to spend the time and money to resolve it. You need to put forward the social case.

A few stories about wing mirrors and scratched panels isn’t going to be enough.

So, what are the statistics?

Roadhawk

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's pretty much an attempt to suppress the number of cyclists (it came in train with a massive increase in fines), which isn't large to begin with. New South Wales is, allegedly, the worst place in the developed world to cycle, and they're keen to build on that.

I dont think this law was designed to suppress the number of cyclists directly. It may have that adverse effect but as far as google has shown me there seems to be a lot of fines governing cyclists in New South Wales. If there is a need for fines there is clearly a problem...they have a €300 fine for jumping red lights. I can only assume that they are making the ID mandatory as a response to cyclists getting away with not paying fines. I could be wrong...

Grassey

mickdw wrote: »

Hence my idea of identifier displayed on back on high viz vest. No need for plates at all and one on the back is plenty. Any cyclist making his get away having caused damage will have his back to you unless he peddles off backwards.

So compulsory high-vis for all non-car drivers also as part of this?

Does the high-vis go over or under backpacks?
Does high-vis serve any benefit? Currently drivers appear unable to see it, so expecting them to read text/numbers is a bit of a stretch no?

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

the gardai have the legal power to confiscate the bike if they believe a cyclist is given false details, IIRC.

are there any other pursuits where you have a legal requirement to carry ID? not including driving, as driving requires a licence, so the requirement is more to carry proof you are qualified to drive, rather than a requirement to prove your identity AFAIK.

Yes but the Gardai usually dont confiscate bikes due to a number of reasons like lack of storage space at the station, responsibility whilst confiscated and the works that goes with processing a confiscated article.

My point is to include cyclists, as vehicle users, in the licensing categories with other vehicle users. Showing that they have the savvy to use the roads aswell as identifying offenders when required.

tomasrojo

Roadhawk wrote: »

I dont think this law was designed to suppress the number of cyclists directly. It may have that adverse effect but as far as google has shown me there seems to be a lot of fines governing cyclists in New South Wales. If there is a need for fines there is clearly a problem...they have a €300 fine for jumping red lights. I can only assume that they are making the ID mandatory as a response to cyclists getting away with not paying fines. I could be wrong...

I have never been to NSW so I'm loth to opine too strongly on it. Except that ID laws extended to cyclists should also be extended to pedestrians, if they're intended to stop law-breaking, rather than make cyclists life as much a hassle as motorists'.

The fines are preposterous too. They completely ignore the principle of proportionality.

This guy has been to NSW:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2016/jul/28/roundabout-arguments-cant-disguise-sydneys-cycling-laws-are-taking-the-public-for-a-ride

Are cyclists feeling much safer? It’s fair to say the impact has been mixed. In May it turned out that while police had by then energetically handed out 1,500 of the new fines to cyclists, mainly over helmet use, just four motorists had felt the force of the law for close overtakes. There were also reports of overzealous enforcement of the rules, including a dangerous cycling citation for someone trackstanding at a red light.

Chips Lovell

If the Guards say they've serious problems identifying miscreant cyclists and pedestrians, then mandatory ID may be worth considering.

If they don't have a problem, then its a waste of time and taxpayers' money.

Roadhawk

Jawgap wrote: »

Likewise pedestrians - if cyclists, to aid the enforcement of road traffic legislation, are to be required to carry ID, why not pedestrians?

Well the difference here is quite noticeable. A cyclist is in control of a vehicle and therefore should be licensed. Pedestrians are not in control of any vehicle and therefore should be exempt.

tomasrojo

Roadhawk wrote: »

My point is to include cyclists, as vehicle users, in the licensing categories with other vehicle users. Showing that they have the savvy to use the roads aswell as identifying offenders when required.

If I understand you, cyclists should have a licence, like a driving licence?

Nowhere does it, or will do it, not even Australia (NSW looked into that, and it was too much effort even for them).

tomasrojo

ID laws often end up as a handy pretext for harassing minorities too.

DirkVoodoo

Roadhawk wrote: »

Well the difference here is quite noticeable. A cyclist is in control of a vehicle and therefore should be licensed. Pedestrians are not in control of any vehicle and therefore should be exempt.

What about scooters? The little foot powered ones?

Licensing for something that is incredibly powerful, big and proven to cause a lot of death and destruction, makes sense. Guns, cars, etc.

Licensing something that, in general, produces the same power as a light bulb is ridiculous. And doing it because people don't like the idea of bikes riding through traffic is even more so.

Roadhawk

Leroy42 wrote: »

Has the size of the problem actually been calculated?... So, what are the statistics?

Cyclists as a main/regular mode of transport is the only vehicle group that does not require a license...how is this sane?

tomasrojo

Roadhawk wrote: »

Cyclists as a main/regular mode of transport is the only vehicle group that does not require a license...how is this sane?

You're implying that the way things are done in every country in the world is insane, including the countries with excellent crime and road safety statistics.

ThisRegard

Roadhawk wrote: »

Pedestrians are not in control of any vehicle and therefore should be exempt.

But wouldn't it be easier to track a pedestrian down that assaulted someone, or stole something, if they have mandatory yellow clothing with a unique number? I believe this happens more regularly than someone on a bike causing an accident and leaving the scene

Carawaystick

Roadhawk wrote: »

Cyclists as a main/regular mode of transport is the only vehicle group that does not require a license...how is this sane?

Because bikes are the only vehicle group that can be used by a 2 year old?
How would you license someone aged 2?
How would you deal with them cycling without a license?

The law defines a pedal cycle as either a pedal bicycle or pedal tricycle
and defines a pedal bicycle as

rta61, S3 wrote:

pedal bicycle means a bicycle which is intended or adapted for propulsion solely by the physical exertions of a person or persons seated thereon

Which includes balance bikes.

Johnny Jukebox

mickdw wrote: »

Hence my idea of identifier displayed on back on high viz vest. No need for plates at all and one on the back is plenty. Any cyclist making his get away having caused damage will have his back to you unless he peddles off backwards.

Yes Mick, you're right. Like a big yellow star with a number on it.

Because remember how that worked out last time...

hullaballoo

I'm not sure about compulsory insurance for everyone who ever gets on a bike (little Johnny can cycle around the green uninsured all he wants!) but surely it's a good idea for those using public roads?

What happens when a cyclist causes their own injuries at present? They cover the costs themselves, right? What happens if the injury is catastrophic, like a broken back? This sort of thing costs multiple millions over a lifetime, impossible for most individuals to cover.

What happens when a cyclist causes an accident between two cars? The cyclist is at fault and the legal system requires the party who is to blame to be held responsible but at present, the car drivers' insurers have to do battle to see who of the two victims is the least victim-y.

What happens when a cyclist causes a catastrophic injury to a pedestrian?

Leroy42

Roadhawk wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

Has the size of the problem actually been calculated?... So, what are the statistics?

Cyclists as a main/regular mode of transport is the only vehicle group that does not require a license...how is this sane?

Ok, so you pointed out the fact that cyclists don't need a licence. Not sure how many people didn't know that but thanks for clearing it up.

Now, why do you think they should have a licence? Simply saying others do is pointless as that assumes that the reasons for motorists requiring licences is the same.

tomasrojo

The current system (which is geographically widespread to the point of being universal) isn't based on the utter impossibility of a cyclist causing harm to others. It's based on the likelihood of that happening, which is small. People in charge of cars, on the other hand, have a very much larger likelihood, so they're treated differently.

mcgratheoin

hullaballoo wrote: »

What happens when a cyclist causes their own injuries at present?

What happens when a cyclist causes an accident between two cars?

What happens when a cyclist causes a catastrophic injury to a pedestrian?

From a purely actuarial point of view, these situations happen so infrequently that it is not worth the expense of implementing any scheme to solve a problem that doesn't really exist.

It's been mentioned here before, but I think that there's only been one pedestrian fatality in Ireland attributable to a cyclist breaking the ROTR (not sure of catastrophic injury figures, but I'd imagine if it was anything significant the anti-cycling brigade would be trumpeting it loudly). As for their own injuries, many cyclists (particularly those at higher risk of injuries e.g. racing cyclists) are already covered with insurance. Additionally, your points above equally apply to pedestrians but nobody is suggesting that pedestrians need to be licenced or have insurance?

tomasrojo

This site discusses the issue in a fair bit of detail.
http://ipayroadtax.com/licensed-to-cycle/licensed-to-cycle/

It goes Godwin about a quarter of the way through, but we're also past that stage.

Leroy42

hullaballoo wrote: »

I'm not sure about compulsory insurance for everyone who ever gets on a bike (little Johnny can cycle around the green uninsured all he wants!) but surely it's a good idea for those using public roads?

What happens when a cyclist causes their own injuries at present? They cover the costs themselves, right? What happens if the injury is catastrophic, like a broken back? This sort of thing costs multiple millions over a lifetime, impossible for most individuals to cover.

What happens when a cyclist causes an accident between two cars? The cyclist is at fault and the legal system requires the party who is to blame to be held responsible but at present, the car drivers' insurers have to do battle to see who of the two victims is the least victim-y.

What happens when a cyclist causes a catastrophic injury to a pedestrian?

All genuine concerns but how frequent are they? If they are sizeable they the case would be strong but nobody is proving anything other than personal anecdotes to back up their wish.

A certain number of people die each year from choking, should we demand personal insurance? Should DIY be regulated since it leads to numerous accidents.

Drink causing many accidents and yet you don't need a licence for that.

It comes down to potential damage to others and insurance is designed to return the injuried party back to their original state prior to an accident.

So are cyclists causing a significant amount of damage to either people or property?