Proposed Cyclist Legislation.

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 00:16:59 +0100, Judith wrote:

On Thu, 4 Jun 2015 05:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote:

On Thursday, 4 June 2015 10:41:01 UTC+2, tim..... wrote:


and how is anyone ever going to know that a random cyclist is
displaying the correct number

are there going to be continual "stop and checks" on cyclist's
documentation?

Amongst a bunch of nonsensical suggestions this is one that makes some
of the rest look sensible

What would happen if a dozen cyclists are in the locker room after a
shift and someone rides home with the wrong vest on? What mechanism
would identify this "lawbreaker"?

Trust a cyclist not to know his own number and nick someone elses.

What if someone had the incorrect number plate on their car - what
mechanism would identify this "lawbreaker".

I recall why you were known as Simple Simon.

See above

"David Lang" wrote in message
...
On 04/06/2015 09:45, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 31/05/2015 16:30, tim..... wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 31/05/2015 10:38, tim..... wrote:

"David Lang" wrote in message
...
On 30/05/2015 09:23, Nick wrote:
On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional
training for
younger people via schools.
2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for
cyclists -
which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
3. Compulsory third party insurance.
4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes,
reflectors and
lights.
5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to
individual.
6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking
laws.
7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being
checked
every
five years- of them and their bike.
8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which
must be
worn at
all times whilst cycling.
9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of
hi-viz
garment and clearly visible.
10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and
crushing
of cycle
for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling
charities
(CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.


What are you trying to achieve?

The correct & proper regulation of a group of serial law breakers.

and the "criminalisation" of a group of law abiding ones

tim



How would law abiding ones be made criminals ? Laws are often
enacted which make certain actions or inactions illegal.

you really think that a responsible person who has been cycling for 40
years would comply with point (1)?

tim

Yes, of course.

What, after all, does the word "responsible" MEAN?

In the circumstances posited, how could a cyclist refusing to comply
with such a basic requirement of the law be termed "responsible"?

because breaking a "rule made for rules sake" is not irresponsible


Try doing 45mph at 1:00 am on a deserted 30mph road with a speed camera,
then arguing with a judge.

but that's not a rule for rule sake, is it

tim

On 06/06/2015 13:04, tim..... wrote:

"David Lang" wrote in message
...
On 04/06/2015 09:45, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 31/05/2015 16:30, tim..... wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 31/05/2015 10:38, tim..... wrote:

"David Lang" wrote in message
...
On 30/05/2015 09:23, Nick wrote:
On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional
training for
younger people via schools.
2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for
cyclists -
which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
3. Compulsory third party insurance.
4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes,
reflectors and
lights.
5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to
individual.
6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking
laws.
7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being
checked
every
five years- of them and their bike.
8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which
must be
worn at
all times whilst cycling.
9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of
hi-viz
garment and clearly visible.
10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and
crushing
of cycle
for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and
cycling
charities
(CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.


What are you trying to achieve?

The correct & proper regulation of a group of serial law breakers.

and the "criminalisation" of a group of law abiding ones

tim



How would law abiding ones be made criminals ? Laws are often
enacted which make certain actions or inactions illegal.

you really think that a responsible person who has been cycling for 40
years would comply with point (1)?

tim

Yes, of course.

What, after all, does the word "responsible" MEAN?

In the circumstances posited, how could a cyclist refusing to comply
with such a basic requirement of the law be termed "responsible"?

because breaking a "rule made for rules sake" is not irresponsible


Try doing 45mph at 1:00 am on a deserted 30mph road with a speed
camera, then arguing with a judge.

but that's not a rule for rule sake, is it

That depends.

I know of dual carriageways with a 30 limit.

In some cases, stretches with a 40 or 50 limit feeding into 30 limits
maybe a mile apart have had it reduced to 30 in order to "avoid confusion".

Perhaps highway and traffic engineers are easily confused and can't
understand that others aren't.

On 06/06/2015 13:04, tim..... wrote:

"David Lang" wrote in message
...
On 04/06/2015 09:45, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 31/05/2015 16:30, tim..... wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 31/05/2015 10:38, tim..... wrote:

"David Lang" wrote in message
...
On 30/05/2015 09:23, Nick wrote:
On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional
training for
younger people via schools.
2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for
cyclists -
which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
3. Compulsory third party insurance.
4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes,
reflectors and
lights.
5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to
individual.
6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking
laws.
7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being
checked
every
five years- of them and their bike.
8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which
must be
worn at
all times whilst cycling.
9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of
hi-viz
garment and clearly visible.
10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and
crushing
of cycle
for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and
cycling
charities
(CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.


What are you trying to achieve?

The correct & proper regulation of a group of serial law breakers.

and the "criminalisation" of a group of law abiding ones

tim



How would law abiding ones be made criminals ? Laws are often
enacted which make certain actions or inactions illegal.

you really think that a responsible person who has been cycling for 40
years would comply with point (1)?

tim

Yes, of course.

What, after all, does the word "responsible" MEAN?

In the circumstances posited, how could a cyclist refusing to comply
with such a basic requirement of the law be termed "responsible"?

because breaking a "rule made for rules sake" is not irresponsible


Try doing 45mph at 1:00 am on a deserted 30mph road with a speed
camera, then arguing with a judge.

but that's not a rule for rule sake, is it

tim




Of course it is.

"Mrcheerful" wrote in
On 04/06/2015 09:44, tim..... wrote:

Who would somebody who has 40 years of "responsible" cycling be
persuaded that going on some training is useful?

You make it useful to them personally: You cannot continue to ride
without taking the training and passing the test. Should be very easy for
the hypothetical responsible cyclist.

Except the whole system would have to start off with those very cyclists
setting the content of any training.

For the priveledge of passing a driving test, my driving licence has a P
category. What extra requirements do you imagine are involved in riding a
bicycle, apart from bigger muscles, that aren't necessary for riding a
moped?