comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 52 minutes ago
Chil Thaw (U22165)

FFS.

No, it's not a wum. Pedestrians use the road. They do.

But here's a different attempt at helping you see why you're wrong.

Motor vehicles are not identifiable 'because the use the road'. Licence plates, licensing and insurance are things that were introduced to help solve a problem.

That problem relates to the scale of the damage and injury/death that motor vehicles cause.

Someone didn't wake up one day and think 'anything that uses the road must be identifiable'. That is ridiculous logic.

So the answer to your question is, because we should only have a legal requirement for visual identification i.e. licensing, if it's going to solve a problem in society and if it's going to have a genuinely credible impact on our society.

It's simply not good enough to say 'well cars have to have them, so should bikes'.

I will be very surprised if you're able to step back and realise the logic in what I'm trying to explain to you but hey, give it a go at least.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is exactly the point I am making!

Insurance and number plates were introduced after it was realised that accidents on the road will happen for motor vehicles.

Bicycles also fall foul of this. Granted not on a similar scale but still they do.

How is it logical or fair for a cyclist to hit a car, motorbike, another cyclist or a pedestrian and get away with it?

That’s incorrect.

It was introduced because of the scale of the accidents and the value of the damage.

Not simply because they ‘realised accidents can happen’.

It’s not fair for someone to damage your car and pay for it. That would also be true for a pedestrian.

If I am cycling and I damage your car then I am liable. Licensing and insurance don’t affect that liability.

I'll try and explain to you Winston one more time and hope you can understand it. It doesn't matter why cars were required to be licensed all those decades ago, the fact is that they were. The result is that the vehicle is recognizable by its number plate, and they are obligated to have insurance. As more and more people take to bikes, electric bikes, scooters etc there is a reported increase in accidents involving bikes. Not in the same numbers and severity of cars of course, some sort of control is a good idea. If you don't think it is a good solution then what is yours.

If you damaged some ones car and rode off, there is nothing to identify you, you haven't thought this through.

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
I'll try and explain to you Winston one more time and hope you can understand it. It doesn't matter why cars were required to be licensed all those decades ago, the fact is that they were. The result is that the vehicle is recognizable by its number plate, and they are obligated to have insurance. As more and more people take to bikes, electric bikes, scooters etc there is a reported increase in accidents involving bikes. Not in the same numbers and severity of cars of course, some sort of control is a good idea. If you don't think it is a good solution then what is yours.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course it matters ffs.

It’s the whole basis for licensing. If you can’t make a case for it in the way that there was a case made for motor vehicles to be licensed, then what the fack are you left with?

You’re entitled to your opinion but some opinions are based on considerably more logic than others.

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 3 minutes ago
If you damaged some ones car and rode off, there is nothing to identify you, you haven't thought this through.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Same for pedestrians.

Someone once scratched my car in a car park but I couldnt identify who had done it because it was a pedestrian and they didn’t have a number plate.

Should pedestrians be licensed?

Yet again, I tell you, you need to demonstrate the scale of the problem to make a case for licensing. It’s not good enough to outline a hypothetical scenario and then demand a new law for it.

Can you people not read?

Do you think you’re the first people to come up with this idea and no one has ever considered it?

Of course we are not the first. Who decides what scale is enough? Politicians of course, and it will come, sooner rather than later.

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 10 seconds ago
Of course we are not the first. Who decides what scale is enough? Politicians of course, and it will come, sooner rather than later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course it won’t come.

Bikes have been around longer than cars. This has been mooted many times and always rejected. Some countries have tested these types of schemes and they’ve always been scrapped.

It’s a flawed concept and it doesn’t take a lot of research to figure out why.

If you’re so entrenched in your view that you refuse to understand these basic points then more fool you.

Still waiting for your solution, or if you think one is needed. No need for the ffs and insults, keep it polite.

I also have to ask the question, why do you all care?

Has uninsured cyclists affected you personally?

If not, what possible interest in this do you have? And then we come back to the emotional / rational element I mentioned earlier.

They are not basic points at all, they are your opinion

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
Still waiting for your solution, or if you think one is needed. No need for the ffs and insults, keep it polite.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Solution to what?

No one has demonstrated there is a problem.

Lol imagine in Amsterdam or Copenhagen them discussing the idea of cyclists being licensed. Our infrastructure heavily favours cars. It has been a best case scenario for drivers for decades and they don't want to lose that. So anything that massively benefits other roads users at a minor disbenefit to themselves is seen as outrageous. Removing on street parking in favour of segregated cycle lanes keeps cyclists safe and off the main carriageway. At the minor expense of some people not being able to park outside a shop or something. But because the current situation massively favours all aspects of driving, they don't want to give anything up.

Cyclists being a minor inconvenience for drivers on the road makes drivers furious. That puts it into perspective how good car drivers have it at the moment. When cyclists are worried about being killed. If everyone drove, then you would not be able to so there needs to be alternatives.

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 56 seconds ago
They are not basic points at all, they are your opinion
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I’ve outlined quite a lot of facts upon which that opinion is based.

As far as my 'research' shows, the only reason bikes registration isn't a thing is because it doesn't make a profit. Not because of any ethical reasons.

Cyclists on the road should have all the rights. Cyclist on pedestrian areas should have no rights.

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 11 seconds ago
Cyclists on the road should have all the rights. Cyclist on pedestrian areas should have no rights.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How about pedestrians on the cycle part of a shared path? The paths with the white line down the middle?

Solution to reckless riders in pedestrian roads and footpaths.

There aren't any where I live Declan except by the port. If it's possible I will send a video of how it works in practice.

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 7 minutes ago
As far as my 'research' shows, the only reason bikes registration isn't a thing is because it doesn't make a profit. Not because of any ethical reasons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonsense. It’s widely accepted it would effect the number of people cycling.

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
Solution to reckless riders in pedestrian roads and footpaths.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

And why is that a problem?

Where’s the evidence? Injuries? Deaths?

Widely accepted? Do you have evidence.?

I don't have evidence of the number of injuries because I don't know where the figures are collated. But it's naive to believe they never happen,

Yeh sure, will dig out some links for you tmw.

As I say, several countries have trialled such a scheme and scrapped it. Same with helmet laws.

Why are you so incapable of accepting the logic? Is every government wrong and you’re right?

Be honest. You don’t want to admit I’m right so now you’ll just argue and argue for the sake of it.

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 29 seconds ago
I don't have evidence of the number of injuries because I don't know where the figures are collated. But it's naive to believe they never happen,
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn’t say it never happens.

But it needs to happen more than once or twice a year to be regarded as something that requires a law change, doesn’t it.

You have no evidence yet you feel well positioned to say we need a new law. Incredible.