Bicycle number plates, insurance, tax etc

[Robster59]

Go on then. Someone suggest a suitable method of being able to identify a bike or rider.

Tattoo on the back of the neck?

 

[Robster59]

Just seen this thread and was not disappointed.
Bloddy cyclists blah blah blah blah hate em no insurance blah blah mamils blah.

The roads are not just for cars. Get used to it.
Bikes are not motorised transport
Get used to it
Bikes do not emit pollutants that cars get “taxed” for
Get used to it.

Tax and insure my grand daughters little bike shall I ? She even rides on the pavement !!!!

In fairness, it you read a number of the posts , not everyone is saying that. I'm certainly not, and neither is @GB72. We're trying to put a balanced response to this.

 

[Backache]

No assumption being made at all. Great to hear that there are loads of cyclists insured, just want to make it compulsory.

.

As already stated there does not actually appear any need to make it compulsory but there is a need not to have a deterrent to cycling as it provides societal benefits.

 

[GB72]

As already stated there does not actually appear any need to make it compulsory but there is a need not to have a deterrent to cycling as it provides societal benefits.

Your opinion, others differ.

 

[Backache]

Your opinion, others differ.

Well yes of course it's my opinion and others may differ.
But so far I have yet to see any evidence that suggests either that compulsory insurance is necessary or a net benefit to society or that stopping people from cycling is in any way a good idea.

 

[GB72]

Well yes of course it's my opinion and others may differ.
But so far I have yet to see any evidence that suggests either that compulsory insurance is necessary or a net benefit to society or that stopping people from cycling is in any way a good idea.

Mine is totally the opposite. I see many benefits to the most basic of licensing and insurance requirements to cycling as we are talking far more than a recreational activity now and are looking at an industry based in delivery of food, couriers etc many of which are based on the quickest route from a to b. I still do not see the down side of registration and insurance if costs are kept to a reasonable level with increases based on claims made.

 

[KenL]

So a small zero-emission EV should pay the same as my Diesel XC90? Where would the revenues go?

No they shouldn't. I like the emission based scale but I doubt ev will stay zero for much longer.

 

[KenL]

It’s almost penalising to have a company car, they often choose the cheapest cars that create a great company image and you get hammered on the tax for the perk. But that’s another thread I’m about to start

Can you not refuse to have a company car if it is a burden?

 

[Backache]

Mine is totally the opposite. I see many benefits to the most basic of licensing and insurance requirements to cycling as we are talking far more than a recreational activity now and are looking at an industry based in delivery of food, couriers etc many of which are based on the quickest route from a to b. I still do not see the down side of registration and insurance if costs are kept to a reasonable level with increases based on claims made.

Maybe there should be a compromise.
As many of the benefits of people cycling as opposed to using cars accrue to other road users and as drivers appear to be the ones who perceive it as being necessary. All bikes should be part of a government approved licensing and insurance scheme funded by a tax on fuel.

 

[Jimaroid]

Maybe there should be a compromise.
As many of the benefits of people cycling as opposed to using cars accrue to other road users and as drivers appear to be the ones who perceive it as being necessary. All bikes should be part of a government approved licensing and insurance scheme funded by a tax on fuel.

There’s been some heated discussion about fuel taxation related to EVs on the forum that has outlined why I think that type of taxation is a backwards looking strategy. Same applies here. I don’t really want to go through that again other than to say I don’t think fuel taxation (alone) works for the future of travel.

My proposal would be that we accept National Insurance as a formal ID system and tax and insure through general taxation. Most of the framework is already there and it’s parental responsibility+liability up until the age of 16.

I see many positives to this in terms of health(reduced NHS burden) as well as travel, energy and environmental.

The downsides are the capitalist, privacy and anti-ID lobbyists will hate it, as well as the general toxic hatred of all things cycling within the car lobby and a general issue of blinkers in any sort of government led uptake in cycling.

Of course I’ve not thought this all through! But since Shapps was allowed to put unthought ideas on the front pages I think I’m doing better already and it would be the best option currently within reach. Everything comes back to an ID system irrespective of the form of transport. I think some form of national 3rd party liability insurance might be a bit of a revolution?

Everything else, I think, is rearranging deckchairs and distraction. It is my belief that transport and it’s taxation needs another revolution to be fit for the future.

Thank you for listening to my TED talk.

 

[RichA]

Just stopped for a smoke break on the way up to my Dad's. I've been on the M11, A14 and A1 for the last hour with cruise control set to 2mph over the speed limit, as I know from experience that my speedo reads 2mph high.
It's good to know that the couple of hundred vehicles that have broken the speed limit to overtake me are all properly registered and will be prosecuted.
In the interests of fairness, I'll do the same when I come off the fast roads and keep a tally of how many unregistered pedal cycles overtake me.

 

[clubchamp98]

There’s been some heated discussion about fuel taxation related to EVs on the forum that has outlined why I think that type of taxation is a backwards looking strategy. Same applies here. I don’t really want to go through that again other than to say I don’t think fuel taxation (alone) works for the future of travel.

My proposal would be that we accept National Insurance as a formal ID system and tax and insure through general taxation. Most of the framework is already there and it’s parental responsibility+liability up until the age of 16.

I see many positives to this in terms of health(reduced NHS burden) as well as travel, energy and environmental.

The downsides are the capitalist, privacy and anti-ID lobbyists will hate it, as well as the general toxic hatred of all things cycling within the car lobby and a general issue of blinkers in any sort of government led uptake in cycling.

Of course I’ve not thought this all through! But since Shapps was allowed to put unthought ideas on the front pages I think I’m doing better already and it would be the best option currently within reach. Everything comes back to an ID system irrespective of the form of transport. I think some form of national 3rd party liability insurance might be a bit of a revolution?

Everything else, I think, is rearranging deckchairs and distraction. It is my belief that transport and it’s taxation needs another revolution to be fit for the future.

Thank you for listening to my TED talk.

Yes I agree but they need to use that taxation to make the roads fit for purpose.
In Liverpool you take your life in your hands on the roads.

 

[Oddsocks]

Can you not refuse to have a company car if it is a burden?

I’ll start another thread Ken.

 

[Jimaroid]

Missed this last week, a very a sad example of the disproportional issues in driver vs cyclist.

On phone
cocaine
uninsured

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-62603653

A good life ruined and it’s likely he’ll be out of prison and back on the roads in a couple of years. Scum!

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Missed this last week, a very a sad example of the disproportional issues in driver vs cyclist.

On phone
cocaine
uninsured

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-62603653

A good life ruined and it’s likely he’ll be out of prison and back on the roads in a couple of years. Scum!

Totally agree with your comments, reckless drivers get away with far too much, sentences are way too lenient.

The point of focussing only on driver v cyclist is not entirely fair though. The irresponsible cyclist, in cities in particular, are a problem for pedestrians and in that battle the pedestrian usually comes off worse. The reality is, irresponsible people are the problem, whether in cars, on motorbikes, on push bikes, on electric scooters etc. A v B rarely helps.

 

[Jimaroid]

The point of focussing only on driver v cyclist is not entirely fair though. The irresponsible cyclist, in cities in particular, are a problem for pedestrians and in that battle the pedestrian usually comes off worse. The reality is, irresponsible people are the problem, whether in cars, on motorbikes, on push bikes, on electric scooters etc. A v B rarely helps.

Agree and I know as I’ve made the same points earlier in the thread. The whole system is somewhat broken. Just feeling particularly miserable about it again this morning.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Agree and I know as I’ve made the same points earlier in the thread. The whole system is somewhat broken. Just feeling particularly miserable about it again this morning.

I liked, and then unliked because sometimes it doesn't feel appropriate. I know what you mean, the damage to life, the ripple effect, is so large and wasteful.

 

[theoneandonly]

Typical words of a non-cyclist who thinks it’s easy to break 30-40mph.

Edit: 20mph is easy. 30mph is difficult for majority of cyclists. 40mph maybe if you’re in The Tour de France.

I cycled to the station this morning and thought I'd see how fast I could get. Down a long hill I got to 26mph. Probs could have got to 30 but was on a cycle path and had to slow. Certainly wasn't easy though.

 

[SocketRocket]

Regarding the OP. It's not going to happen.