UKH

Just seen this: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/16/registration-plates-and-ins.... 

How on earth would this be implemented and why?

My feeling is Shapps is singing to the Daily Mail readership choir in an effort not to get sacked by Truss or Sunak in a couple of weeks. I suspect bringing back the death penalty, or at least the cane in schools, will be next.

It’s a vote winner, simple as that. From the Liz Truss school of politics. The fact that the result will be a lot less people cycling won’t bother them.

This bit makes me laugh…

“Particularly where you’ve got 20mph limits on increasing numbers of roads, cyclists can easily exceed those, so I want to make speed limits apply to cyclists.”

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-ceaseless-selfpity-of-cyclists
a constant drip drip of nasty ranting like this.

British politics and the race to the bottom 

Don't those damn Europeans cycle? Bah, rant, humbug, bah

Number of pedestrians killed by vehicles - 430

Number of cyclists killed by vehicles - 141

Number of pedestrians killed by cyclists - 3

Tory logic. Let's go after the cyclists.

E

And these are the politicians who bang on about their ideological commitment to civil liberties as soon as anyone starts talking about vaccine passports. Or about their hatred for bureaucracy when it relates to workplace safety, workers rights and environmental protections.

Anyway, has anyone come up with any description of how a bike registration plate scheme would actually work, and roughly how much it'd cost to implement? Taking into account the fact that the fact that it's not just a case of sticking a piece of plastic on a bike but of making sure the piece of plastic is traceable back to the owner, and isn't fake, and can't just be claimed to be lost or stolen if someone gets busted off the back of it? 

Indeed, they could think about going after the 1 million uninsured drivers for starters. Like the 1 in 8 on the MP's doorstep in East London - https://www.churchill.com/press-office/releases/2016/uninsured-driving-hots...

Like an episode of Top Gear

2021:

Fatalities caused by cars...1600

Serious injuries....26,000

Fatalities caused by bicycles...3

Serious injuries.....120

Definitely worth wasting government time on this one

I had been wondering, from the drip drip of stories over the last few months from vile rags like the Speccy, whether the government had been planning to open up a new culture war front against cyclists. It makes perfect sense. After all their targeted voting demographic is precisely the sort of whiney snowflake who thinks that anything green is an assault on their fragile identity and that the biggest problem in society is cyclists using roads.

I can't see this ever coming into law. Surely even Shapps isn't stupid enough to think it's a good idea to task an already stretched police force with pulling over cyclists for the crime of going about their business. 

I currently have an insurance policy on my bike. The day this comes into force, my policy is being cancelled and I will continue about my business harmlessly as I always have done.

I reckon his mate runs a number plate company 

It's just gammon fodder, the chances of it happening are miniscule. 

I was going to say Schapps should be denied the oxygen of publicity but denying him actual oxygen might be better.

I'd be perfectly happy if the same penalties were applied to cyclists as they are to drivers.

Just this morning there was another report of a negligent skip lorry driver who killed a woman in a broken down car on the M6 getting a full 12 month suspended prison sentence and a few points on his license.

And to think if the skip lorry had a number plate and the dead woman's car had lights and reflectors then all this wouldn't have happened and all the daily mail readers could sleep soundly at night.

Burchill is so predictable it's just tedious. "Bitter", "old", "racist" and "cokehead" are a few words that just pop into my mind on reflection. It is mad that people still pay her for her rantings, but it is the Spectator, so I guess not surprising.

I do wonder why the UK isnt absolutely wiping the floor in all road events given how fast our casual cyclists are.

I guess the train network is fine and there are no illegal drivers on the road so might as well start dealing with the minor issues.

I’m old enough to remember reading her pieces when she was sharp, amusing and occasionally insightful.
A warning to us all to remain intellectually and emotionally limber as we age. 

Just when you think that the Tories can't possibly get any c##tier...

From personal experience I’ve noticed that getting from A to B has become noticeably harder this summer.

As I’m writing this I should be meeting a client for acceptance of a piece of equipment, they couldn’t make it because there flight was cancelled and there was no rail alternative, I’m looking at an uncertain rail journey back. This is the third time such things have happened, hiring a car is uncertain because of limited hire cars (supply chain)

my own vehicle has become unreliable (post covid cashflow prevents a new car)

The rail system is unreliable, expensive and understaffed (I fully agree with the strike action even though it has caused me financial pain and a fair bit of stress)

Flights are unreliable and being cancelled last minute. Last time my bag didn’t get on the Plane and I didn’t see it for a week

how is business going to be conducted if people can’t get from A to B?

imports/exports  are hitting choke points at the ports

meanwhile the idiot in charge of transport is gammon baiting

My letter to my MP first thing this morning.

Dear Sir, as a cyclist (c 10,000 miles pa), driver (c 30,000 miles pa) and pedestrian (1500 miles pa) I wish to register my incredulity at Grant Shapps latest attack on cyclists. He's obviously focussed on the Westminster bubble where cyclists may be a problem in London due to lack of cycling infrastructure and proper policing. However my experience is that he is addressing a non problem in the rest of the country and indeed fuelling even more road rage incidents against cyclists. I already see many incidents of unprovoked aggression by drivers and have installed cameras on my bike and regularly submit police reports from them. My experience is backed up by data from ROSPA.

Can I ask why , at a time, when road infrastructure is crumbling,one cannot move on main arterial roads in a vehicle without encountering major delays due to long running road works, the rail system is eye wateringly expensive, bus services non-existent and airports are at a standstill, Mr Shapps chooses to fuel aggression against cyclists?

If this is a diversionary tactic to remove the focus from the chaos in his department then he needs to be replaced by someone with integrity and problem solving ability.

Regards

You cycle 10,000 miles per year? Good going!

And yet still have time to drive 30,000 miles per year, and walk 1,500 miles per year?

Do you own a sofa?

I am curious where they think these reg plates would go? Motorcycles generally have a wider tyre so number plate can fit on a mud guard. A slim road bike leaves little space for one, too small can't read it, too large liable to break off or be a hazard. You could  have it ont he back of your shirt but then it's not fixed.

In addition, though I doubt this will do anything but stir up the DM readership, would the prospect of paying road tax mean that dedicated cycle track/lanes would become more ubiquitous? Because the ones around here are a joke, up the pavement, off the pavement, disappearing just when you need them, requesting cyclist to get off at every junction.

I fear we are looking at politicians who would honestly segregate buses and bang ethnic groups into concentration camps if they thought it would win votes. Extreme I know but this is what you get when you go for what people want rather than educate them. I say extreme but I once raised this with someone I knew over Trump (ie. the populist sort of politics he represented could in theory lead to ethinic cleansing) and his reply was "Yes but if that's what the people want that's what you have to do."

If this were serious (which it clearly isn't), the best approach would surely be to add 20p or whatever the cost is to the price of every bike sold and  arrange a blanket insurance for all cyclists with the proceeds.

I don't have a problem with speed limits being applied to bikes, but that's a very minor thing.

Switzerland used to have bike reg plates.  Much smaller than car ones.  If the Swiss couldn't make it work, there is clearly no chance here.

I'm semi retired with a widespread family|!

more likely he would set up a dodgy internet company to cream the profits and also take insufficient care of people's personal data and probably with dodgy functionality re linking payments to licensee resulting in prosecutions of people who have paid the vilescum imposed tax.

And operate it as per past career under an alias

I'd go for that

he always reminds me, with his bland optimistic smooth sales spiel and blank look,  of someone I had to work with a few years back who set up a dodgy website advertising his IT services and claiming as testimonials to his skill some of the internal projects our organisation had implemented, not with much input from him.

I suspect that it could be done under due care and attention with a much publicised policy direction from the government specifically to include non observance of speed limits as a presumption of said offence.  Concrete evidence of course would have to be screened for bigger moving reflectors being in the beam, which burden I'm sure the police would welcome.

Or would it be easier to enforce purchase and carrying of a Shappsco suplied ometer with tracking GPS record.

I had forgotten that the speed limits did not apply to all road users. Seems a bit illogical.

I think the solution to the road problem is an internet bot that tracks down anyone who says on social media the immortal lines “but cyclists don’t pay road tax” they should then pay an £500 “Road tax” surcharge immediately, non compliance will result in next day shipping to Rwanda.

It won't, it's posturing.

Exceeding 20mph on a bike is a lot of effort.  Those road cyclists who can do that should rein it in a bit in 20s, but it is largely a non issue.

The Swiss dumped that and compulsory insurance (CHF5 per year, which is about four quid, so shows how rare claims were) in about 2010 as bringing no benefit.  You do still see the plates on bikes there though, which is a curiosity.  They were small ones like you see fitted to trial e-scooters and probably don't even notice!

well I wouldn't trust the current lot to run a tap let alone run a scheme this complex. 

Schrodinger’s Shapps in which he is simultaneously in favour of and against registration, in two different national papers

https://road.cc/content/news/grant-shapps-backtracks-number-plates-cyclists...

Bit of a U-turn since September:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/585474?reveal_response=yes

On the other hand I can't believe cyclists go out on bikes worth 5k - 15k without insurance.

I'm insured through both my bike club and home insurance for third party accidents + damage to my bike.

E

Is a bicycle a bicycle if it’s got stabilises on ?  Will I need to register a child’s bike, and what would define a child bike, wheel size frame length. 

It wont happen 

The whole point of the reg plate is to be as much of a pain in the arse as possible so it can amuse currently butthurt drivers. So it should be at least as wide as the handle-bars, front and rear for maximum aerodynamic resistance, should be lit up with fairy lights which the cyclist will power by a dynamo system and will also have speakers which will continually project an annoying bicycle bell sound. Only then will Mr Outraged in the Surrey Hills be able to drive around his tank-sized black range rover in peace and comfort, safe in the knowledge that freeloaders have been sufficiently humiliated. Although they still don't pay road tax, the bastards. Well he can always knock one off for fun.

It will clearly be an expensive, bureaucratic task to implement. Assumes cyclists are a homogeneous group but kids riding to school won't be getting insurance nor will their grans/ granddads popping to a sho.occadionally. Police, at the moment, can barely impact use of phones by motorists so no chance of monitoring bike usage. Will all new bikes need a speedo? Will bikes need an MOT to ensure speedo reads accurately? 

The whole story is a nonsense but then so are 40 new hospitals, refugees to Rwanda etc. 

Rather than deter cycling they should do more to encourage it for health, pollution and economic reasons. 

Basically, a small minority of cyclists are prats and a small minority of drivers are prats. The driver variety are clearly more dangerous and having insurance doesn't prevent their prattish behaviour.

( I do have insurance by virtue of UK Cycling membership. )

Exactly.

Given the demographic that is important to would-be Tory leaders at the moment, I'm expecting mentions of possible bans on any music after 1975, electric cars, books with small print and any trainers apart from wide-fitting grey ones with velcro fastenings. But I don't expect to see any demand for licence plates on mobility scooters like the one that drove into me in Sainsbury's the other day.

And while we are at it what about these pedestrians? They can walk or run down the street with impunity, no licence or insurance whatsoever. Do they understand what sort of damage a body does to a car when they strike one at 40 mph? A friend of a friend was KILLED by a pedestrian when the pram they were pushing caused him to career into a parked car at over 80 mph. People say to me why don't yo get a bike but I ABSOLUTELY need my SUV to pick up Tarquin from school at the top of our road.

Indeed. But what sort of cyclist exceeds the speed limit anyway? 

I am in total agreement with a road registration plate for cycles. Mine would be fitted  sidewards above the front wheel, much like a scythe.

 I would endeavour to keep it well sharpened, so that it could slice through paper, and then cycle furiously around Westminster!!!

Terrorists have started just running into packed crowds of passers by. The carnage is appalling.

A relatively fit cyclist on a road bike can fairly easily maintain 20mph on a flat, well paved road. 

It just fades into meaningless when you consider than the vast majority of drivers are speeding regularly.

Your child might not ride unaccompanied on the pavement, jump red lights, ride the wrong way on one way streets and in the worst case scenario injure people. Last year on Eccleshall rd Sheffield a single speed(ing) bike was scattering people off the pavement and I just had time to drop my shoulder and have him off. Riding like this is unacceptable. He was for a very short period prepared to argue the toss but backed down. I live out in the Peak and have cycled for over 30 years, both fairly competitively and for leisure. I’ve seen riders in sportives ( not even a race) mount the pavement and jump lights rather than wait. If I did that on my motorbike it could be a large fine and 6 points. So we need to put out own house in order and blaming the Torys is facile. The majority of the population want action as a few continue to spoil it for the many. So if some kind of accountability won’t fix it what will?

Maybe you've hit on an idea there. Could I get a numberplate for my bike that's 6 foot wide (aero trims obviously) with carbide flails on the ends. That way at least if anyone decides to close pass me they'll loose all the paint off the side of their car. And if they want to report me they incriminate themselves for the close pass.

Why does this argument only ever apply to cyclists? Why aren't drivers ever called upon to set their house in order?

Shapps stupidity of course. Make speed limits apply to cyclists? Fair enough actually (and I cycle a lot). Jump red lights - already currently illegal.

As he said though - you'd need a registration plate, then some sort of registration facility (at some cost). You'd need to know you were exceeding the speed limit. I pootle along at 20 mph on our local roads (20 mph limit) and my Wahoo tells me I'm doing 20. But that's not legally calibrated - so I'd need an MOT of some sort. Any make speedometers a legal requirement.

Of course, 9 out of 10 drivers overtake me when I'm doing 20 in a 20 limit. But that's not the problem of course..... The police won't even clamp down on electric scooters in the road. Just been down in London and there's huge numbers on the road. So we need more police - even though they won't investigate most burglaries because they don't have enough staff. 

Well thought out stuff from Shapps as ever......

The fact the 'fail' quotes 'mr loophole' says enough.

They are, clearly!  Driving is very highly regulated.  I don't see how cyclists can reasonably object to having to obey a speed limit.  Do so just makes them look like all the stereotypes. 

0.1% of speeding incidents are actually caught and punished. In truth I don't know what the real number is, but I doubt anybody does.

Playing Devil's Advocate here.

What have the numbers got to do with the principle? One death caused by dangerous motoring, motor biking, cycling, scootering  or whatever is one too many , and a catastrophe for the person involved and their loved ones. Motorists already face a maximum penalty of 10 years in jail for causing death by dangerous driving, cyclists currently face a maximum of 2 years for causing death by "furious" or dangerous riding. It's illogical. Death is death, and causing it by dangerous use of a vehicle regardless of the means of transport  being used should carry the same penalty.

Mandatory insurance for using a mechanical vehicle which can cause death or injury seems entirely logical. Speed limits which reduce the risks of causing death or injury seem entirely logical, and penalty points seem like a logical way of warning people who drive, cycle or whatever in a careless or dangerous manner to be more considerate to other road, pavement or cycle tracks users.

Number plates make identification much easier, should the need arise, for police to identify the user of any vehicle and interview them, particularly if they have left the scene of a collision. Why is that a problem?

Well Mr. Advocate, I'd say first of all that causing death by dangerous cycling or any other reckless act is already illegal. 

Here we are talking about a mandatory registration insurance and number plate scheme for all bicycles and that is a matter of costs and benefits. There is a massive public benefit in terms of health, road congestion and road safety in getting more people cycling, even compared with using public transport, let alone private cars. 

The admin costs of a mandatory cycle registration, number plate and insurance scheme would be out of all proportion to the risks and just wouldn't be practical. We can't (or don't) even fully enforce the rules about needing a licence and insurance for cars, or speed limits or (more significantly) driving too close, using phones whilst driving or driving in a reckless and dangerous manner. Also, what about children - would they be exempt; should there suddenly be a minimum age and a recognised test to pass before you are allowed to cycle outdoors - if so how will they learn to ride a bike and if not, how is an unqualified 12 year old going to get insurance?

But, as you suggest, the risk of one death, whatever the cause and however unlikely, is one too many and, in that spirit, you can drop your lead rack off at my house any time this week. Probably best if you bring your dishwasher too - I read they are a significant cause of deaths in the home. Not sure how you'll get here though as you won't be wanting to cycle or even drive

I think this logic grounds a lot of the current policy announcements and press campaigns. On first sight, they look like a dead cat and probably are, what with there being a lot of bad news about right now.

But they're also very specific kinds of dead cat, always proximal to some larger and longer-term strategic imperative that can only be addressed obliquely. This one is climate action, isn't it? The latent message has nothing to do with cycling at all. The ERG-adjacent need to keep a measure of climate change scepticism alive if they're to hold onto climate change denial funders, and using cycling as a placeholder for the green movement does that without openly admitting climate change denial.

I don't object to obeying a speed limit, but how can you legally obey a speed limit when you don't know what speed you're going at?

In order for this to work all bikes would need a calibrated speedo. I get a rough idea how fast I'm going on a road by how I'm keeping up with traffic but that's it.  

Yep

E

Have you seen the stats on people driving without insurance/licence/mot etc?

In theory its regulated but in reality only really for those who are already law abiding.

If they want to reduce problem "cyclists" I expect a crackdown on bicycles illegally converted to motorbikes would be far more fruitful than bothering with new laws. Certainly when it comes to speed limits.

I know its awful hearing them whine about the war on cyclists and scameras and so forth.

Oh wait sorry thats a subset of motorists isnt it?

OT really but nor should they imo.  Anyone using one of those things instead of driving a car is ok by me. Not quite as good as cycling but cool.  It's ridiculous that you can legitimately hire one by the hour but there's no legal way to use one that you actually own.

 Because he’s a nasty, Daily Mail-courting moron 

I don't think anybody here is advocating for cyclists killing pedestrians. Nobody is saying that it isn't a tragedy every time a pedestrian is killed by a cyclist.

But there is a big problem. Resources are limited. It would be incredibly costly and disruptive to bring about this law. Think of the logistics and cost required to take every bicycle that's in current use and retrofit it with a speedometer and a registration plate. There is not a shred of evidence that it would have any positive outcome on road safety. Consider what you might achieve instead if you focused that resource towards curbing dangerous driving behaviour.

Are they really going to expect an already stretched police force to start pulling over cyclists simply for going about their business in a way that is, currently, entirely legal? Are they really going to outlaw every cyclist overnight?

Consider the consequences of placing significant barriers to the use of bicycles, something which has up until now been regarded as a right. Quite apart from a disturbing point about the erosion of our freedoms, making cycling difficult will force many cyclists off their bikes and into their already insured cars. That results in more traffic, more congestion, more pollution and more danger on the roads.

It's a policy that's not remotely tenable, is completely unenforceable, and if it could be implemented, would have an entirely detrimental effect on road safety. But it's not a law that's intended to ever get anywhere near a statute book.

I'm in The Netherlands right now. I knew they had good cycling infrastructure before I went but it's beyond my expectations and I'm not even a cyclist! When I read the headlines for the UK whilst being here I just felt embarrassed. The Netherlands (at least what I've seen) is a great example of how to treat cyclists.

Side point - IANAL but as I understand it you can, in principle, be found guilty of manslaughter in either case if your behavior was sufficiently reckless. This is the really consistent position - killing people has the same result regardless of whether you do it with a car or a bike or a load of bricks or a legal firearm or whatever. Death by dangerous driving was introduced as a lesser crime because juries were perceived to be reluctant to convict for manslaughter in cases where the implement of death was a car.

It's all a bit please ignore the rail strikes, the rising cost of living, erosion of real wages, climate change, how well brexit is going, the lack of talent in whoever the next PM is etc, etc.

Since johnson is away and not providing (leadership or) media distracting headlines (apart from his actual absence in a time of crisis)... - this is the best they've got. 

Grant Shapps showing he was never capable of PM-level  misdirection.  Ignore the hell out of this. It'll not happen. Penalty points for offenders... Ha. What's next?

Agreed. But let's start with big heavy fast things like car, vans and trucks, then motorbikes, and then when no-one is piloting any of them to the harm of others, bicycles.

Boris? Is that you....?

I,ve been knocked off my bike three times by bad drivers, the last time hospitalising my wife, but the driver was traced by his number plate and paid through the courts for his actions. A cyclist could have made off. The argument doesn’t only apply just to cyclists, but why should we be exempt from the rules of the road. Living in and around narrow country lanes and since the recent revisions to the Highway Code I’ve often now seen cyclists with a sense of entitlement blocking narrow lanes and refusing to move. Whenever we are out in a group on a narrow lane, if traffic needs to pass we go single file and wave them through, not antagonise them by “I know my rights, own the road and don’t dare close pass”. This kind of behaviour is what antagonises other road users, especially around here at this time of year, as farmers are trying as fast as possible to get silage home.

The hire schemes are basically tests to help formulate the law, they will be legalised.

There is plenty legislation in place for bikes, scooters, cars and other vehicles, what there is a lack of is enforcement.

The death penalty in schools? I suppose it would help in making the little scrotes behave but wouldn't the parents kick up a fuss?

How many times have you been knocked off your bike by bad cyclists?

Cyclists aren't exempt from the rules of the road. All reliable evidence shows that car drivers break road laws much more frequently than cyclists.

Drivers are the same in cities. They block the roads with a sense of entitlement and never seem to see the need to pull over to allow faster moving traffic past.

Besides, what do you think will happen if cyclists have been forced to get numberplates and insurance? If I've been forced to jump through the same hoops as drivers (or jump through them twice, I mean I am a driver) then I will damn well expect to be treated as one. The lane is mine and to hell with anyone who wants to get in front.

And a relatively fit cyclist coming off a hill could easily hit 40, but only eejits would tank along at that speed through a 20 limit. 

A flat, well paved road - don't see any of those on the minor roads in towns that cyclists frequent, either near me or when I go out on a motorbike.

Once in a blue moon they might.

Normally they get away with a "there, there, don't do it again" along with a piddling small fine.

When motorists start regularly being given 10 years in jail for murdering some poor innocent then you can say that, but not yet.

Grant Shapps is playing you like a fiddle. 

A cyclist could have "made off", but the likelihood of a bicycle becoming unfit to ride after a collision is much higher than that of a car - bent wheel for a bike, bit of blood on the bumper for the car - and then there's also the likelihood that the cyclist will be hurt as well, particularly as they would have been travelling at a higher speed than the pedestrian.

Even if unhurt and the bike is OK, they can be much easier chased than a car can.

One more thing - what about all the idiot pedestrians, particularly those who are "on the phone" that walk out in front of cyclists and cause the cyclists to swerve and get hurt (and occasionally killed). Isn't it about time these pedestrians also had to have a number plate - and dare I suggest it, a test to ascertain whether or not they are safe to go out and walk, plus insurance, and lights (they're always wearing dark clothes) ??

Number of cyclists who always seem to get in the way of Tory voters' big cars :-  zillions

Hence, the dog-whistle politics.  The country will continue its rapid slide downhill if this lot continue in power.

Roller skates represent mechanical travel - would you include them?

or electric toy cars that might run off the pavement and cause a RTA

Actually I would certainly be in favour of registration, licensing and compulsory insurance for extending dog leashes as these have put me in danger descending mountains on foot and on shared ways for pedestrians and cyclists where the dog running suddenly across your path on an extending leash is a hazard that worries me as I have had a number of near misses.

The animal I can cope with but having my legs (on foot on steep ground) or parts of my bike snarled up in one of these stupid devices could be very nasty

Agree - and it's not just a case of saying "you've got to put a number plate on your bike", it's administering and enforcing a system that links number plates to their owners and makes sure people aren't just sticking on random fake plates or claiming that their bike got nicked if they get busted. Bear in mind that the DVLA currently employs about 6000 people to do this for cars. How many nurses are we willing to lose to solve an almost nonexistant problem, how many coppers are we willing to shift over to enforcing it?

Presumably if someone actually used a car as a murder weapon to deliberately kill someone they could be convicted of murder and get the sentencing that goes with murder. But causing death by dangerous driving is not murder; they are not setting out with any intent to harm or kill anyone.

Having said that, I would be happy with heavier sentences for death by dangerous driving in many cases.

Death by dangerous driving is manslaughter. In some cases it will cross the line to murder. I can think of two very clear instances while cycling in which a driver deliberately placed me in a position where my survival was down to luck. I regard both instances as attempted murder, and would happily see those drivers with significant jail sentences and lifetime driving bans.

You might be surprised. I live by a sharp bend in a village. Hedges mean there is no visibility around the bend, which is at the bottom of a long hill, popular with cyclists, and plenty it at a speed which could certainly result in their hitting a crossing pedestrian with no time to take avoiding action.  Some cars speed through too but you can hear them coming, petrol and diesel anyway.  

I presume that it will be for a court to decide which it is. Also I imagine a driver would only be charged with murder if it was thought there was a reasonable chance of conviction (ie proving there was intent to harm or kill)

Again, I imagine it would depend on whether there was intent to harm or kill. I'm not sure where the law would stand if the intent was to, say, scare you but not actually harm you.

Slight counterpoint here is that if people driving (or cycling or walking or pogo-sticking) like idiots is common but only occasionally results in a serious accident and if you want to reduce the actual numbers of serious accidents then the AIUI the best thing to do isn't to modify the laws and sentences that deal with people who do idiotic and dangerous stuff and then kill someone, it's to improve your enforcement towards people who are doing idiotic and dangerous stuff but getting away with it without anyone getting killed, so that people get out of the habit of doing it at all.

This is why things like Operation Close Pass seem to be effective in actually reducing KSIs despite nobody getting sent to prison.

Attempted murder requires that the prosecution prove, so that a jury is sure, an intent to kill. Difficult to prove and your examples aren't there are they? Dangerous driving certainly. 

Really? Could you point us at that evidence? Clearly cars can and do cause more deaths and injuries but that is not the same thing. As someone who drives and cycles, I can tell you that I'm very, very aware of how easily these days drivers can get caught and fined for speeding and other violations. 20 years ago most traffic on motorways cruised at 80-85mph and plenty faster. Now pretty much everyone sticks close to the limit because if you don't, it does not take long to get an unwelcome brown envelope.

As I  say, only eejits  

A popular area for recreational cycling. You do realise that at the weekend, he will don his lycra shorts,  wheel his carbon road bike out of the garage, fire up Strava and off he goes. Cycling is the new golf.

Googling quickly:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/09/08/86-of-motorists-break-2...

Not exactly the evidence you want, just the result of a quick search, but clearly if 86% of drivers are breaking 20mph limits then we're a long way from being able to say that people driving cars are setting a high standard of law-abidingness that cyclists fail to live up to thanks to their lack of number plates and licenses.

But that doesn't demonstrate that cyclists are well behaved. 

Well yes but there's a lot of them then.

Here's some. Admittedly, not in Britain, but somewhere cyclists feel safer. But I think that implies cyclist behaviour here would be better if it were safer, an if there were more of us. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists-break-far-fewe...

No, I agree, I'd leave it to Trevers to provide evidence of that if he can. But it supports the underlying point that it's stupid to say "we need X Y and Z so we can make cyclists obey the law like drivers already do" if drivers don't, in fact, already obey the law.

Some more stats here:
https://cyclinguphill.com/reviews/stats-cycling-red-lights/
 

As a teacher (although not of English) I'm defending my comma usage there! I think I'm in the "eats shoots and leaves" territory rather than "eats, shoots and leaves". Does someone want to convince me otherwise?

In answer to your devil's advocate

Numbers are important as they are an assessment of overall risk. So an activity that results in occasional injury or death is not as serious as an activity that does it more frequently. For instance a person being killed by a rock dislodged by a climber could warrent the banning of climbing if the area was deemed loose and near say a public car park but might not be valid if it occured to a walker in a remote area.

Overall cycling accidents involve low risks and as such are probably not worth extra costs involved when laws governing reckless behaviour are already in place. The difference in fines I would say is to reflect the higher risk involved with a car. So a car driver should be more aware that his vehicle has a greater chance of killing someone.

No, I am sure you are correct. If you had meant the death penalty in schools, you would have put a comma between "cane" and "in". Probably ambiguous with no commas.

Drivers largely obey the law in a way reflecting their likelihood of getting caught and fined. They may not stick to 30mph but not very many do 40mph+ in a 30 zone. Not many do 80mph+ on the motorway any more. So the laws have an effect, even if the effect is not perfect compliance.

I would not have a problem in legal enforcement of speed limits on cyclists. If you feel you need instrumentation to know if you are speeding, it is readily available, it is in most people's pocket. However I'm not sure that change in the law would solve a problem that very much needs fixing.

Most people still cruise at 80-85 on the motorway in fact I was on the motorway not long ago with someone doing 90 and getting overtaken. Not all motorways are covered by speed cameras. An in urban streets with no speed cameras it can be worse. Yesterday three cars shot down my street at well over 30. I would argue that for the most part it is still easy, if not normal for a lot of drivers to go over the speed limit.

I grant you it isn't right that cyclists break the speed limit but generally that is in limited situations. I know some fit road cyclist could break 30 mph and I have reached 35 going down hill but along a 20mph road with speed bumps I doubt it. In fact most times I struggle to get above 10 mph

'Gammon fodder' is a superb play on words.

There is a well-documented problem in UK courts of securing convictions against killer drivers.

https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/no-further-action/

https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/somethings-very-seriously-wrong-here/

According to the CPS, a murder change can be carried if there is an intent to cause GBH. Intent to kill does not need to be proven.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter

In the case of Attempted Murder: "In contrast to the offence of murder, attempted murder requires the existence of an intention to kill. The requisite intention to kill can be inferred by the circumstances"

So even for attempted murder the prosecution is not required to directly prove that the assailant specifically desired the victim's death. So if I shot somebody and they survived, I couldn't simply claim I didn't actually want them to die to get off an attempted murder charge.

In one of the instances I mentioned, I was signalling right and just inside the centre line to turn off a main road into a side road. A driver coming the other way, while at speed, moved towards me, leaned out of his window and reached to grab my arm. I managed to spot the threat and pull my arm back just in time. Had he succeeded, I would have been dragged from my bike into a line of traffic moving at 30mph. The action was very clearly intentional, and in my opinion, it should be reasonably obvious that it would carry a very high risk of causing death had it been successfully carried out.

Had I been killed, I think it would very clearly meet the definition of murder. It's a bit more tenuous, but I'm arguing that the action meets the definition of attempted murder as I understand it (but I can't account for precedent and the difficulty of securing a conviction).

I think the them-versus-us arguments ("drivers/cyclist are more idiotic/dangerous than cyclist/drivers") isn't the key point (IMHO, some people are idiot whatever their means of transport). The real issue is enforcement - a law which cannot (or will) not be enforced is in many ways worse than no law at all: It supports the general perception that 'laws' are just 'guidelines-to-be-followed-when-convenient' (e.g., speeding). Well if one law is just a guideline what about the others (driving without insurance)? It seems to have become socially acceptable for the majority of drivers to be law-breaker (criminals?). And if observance of motoring laws is 'optional', what about other laws? Where does it stop?

 somewhat faulty logic/non sequitur.

Intent to cause GBH plus actual killing =murder

Attempt to cause GBH (incomplete) can never be attempted murder as there is no intent to kill

Your conclusion is misleading as the prosecution still has to prove an intent to murder that can be inferred from the circumstances.

Your second sentence of conclusion does not follow logically or indeed at all from the preceding matter,

(I have to plead not to be wholly ignorant of this field of law)

Yes.

Yes.

No, but it would need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that you intended to kill.

Possibly.

I very much doubt it would. Do you really think the driver intended to kill you?

But that's beside the point in this context. How many cyclists are doing 40+mph in a 30 zone? If we're talking about applying speed limits to cyclists, then the relevant comparison should be even the most minor breach of speed limits by drivers. 32mph in a 30 zone, for example. When we are strict about the definition of speeding, then it's only a vanishingly small proportion of instances that are caught by speed cameras.

As you say, drivers obey the law only to the point of not getting caught. I go through every 50mph average speed zone on the motorway at 56mph and I know I won't get caught, despite all those cameras checking me. Perhaps fewer drivers are doing 80+ on motorways now because of the prohibitive cost of fuel?

I don't think a court of law would regard a mobile phone app as a reliable alternative to a calibrated speedometer.

Definitely not around here (southern England). I recommend if you visit, you slow down. It doesn't need fixed cameras, just a couple of bored policemen in a concealed spot. It's a minor industry in some locations. No need to pull cars over, they just send out brown envelopes. 80mph+ and you will be fined. 70-80mph and you may have the option of spending half a day watching videos of appealing child actors playing road traffic victims, for which entertainment you also pay.

So, very badly, then? There seems to be little traffic enforcement around me; speeding, bad driving, running reds, parking wherever they like: double yellows, opposite junctions, etc. Nor of Deliveroo riders, e-scooters and mini quad bikes riding on pavements.

Cycling on pavements seems to be the norm. I imagine it's because they have been scared off the roads. Deliveroo riders excepted; they're just taking the absolute shortest route possible.

I don't drive. I travel by bike.

No, I think they were an appalling bully who thought it would be hilarious to see a cyclist on the floor, and who had long since forgotten the concept introduced to young children that cars travelling at speed can do awful damage to a human body. But the relevant definition says that "the requisite intention to kill can be inferred by the circumstances", which to me suggests that I don't need to actually prove the driver intended to kill me. As I said, that's the tenuous bit, although this is a bit off topic now.

So if someone decided to "scare" you to "get 'orf my land" by firing a shotgun when you were out walking, you'd imagine there could be any doubt as to how they'd be charged if you were hit by the pellets (and possibly killed) ??

The problem is that the Police and CPS (at least) seem to bend over backwards to give the benefit of the doubt to car drivers. Even the language used - RTA for Road Traffic Accident implies it couldn't be avoided. I'd prefer RTI - Road Traffic Incident, that at least leaves it open-ended.

For info, I walk, ride a bicycle, ride motorbikes and drive a car. All used dependent on their suitability to the job in hand rather than slavishly using one form of transport for everything from going to the corner shop up to going away for the weekend with a boot-full of kit.

You say "no" (and why), but then seem to say an intention to kill is inferred.  It can't be both!

If it is accepted that the intention was to scare and not kill, then they would obviously be charged with manslaughter. 

Ah! I see I was talking about the rest of the country (bar Wales they are hot on there)

Agree.

Agree.

Don't really agree. For instance, I think many drivers will take some laws (insurance, drink driving) much more seriously than others (speeding, squeezing through a light that's just gone red). I think people are mostly capable of distinguishing a law that's being taken seriously from one that's being treated like more of a guideline.

What I really think we need to do is to get away from is the idea that we should strictly enforce all laws that apply to cyclists because obeying the law is the default state of people on the road and cyclists are currently uniquely bad in this respect, and towards the idea that all enforcement (and hence, to be realistic, compliance) is necessarily going to be selective and should be driven by the need to reduce harm.

I don't know about that. In Cornwall, on the largely dualised A30, I drive in the 60-70 range and see few cars screaming past me. In urban 30 mph zones I try very hard to stick to that limit and have never yet had anyone behind me flash me or otherwise pressure me into going faster. 

As for it is easy, you would very quickly find yourself getting fined by fixed, average speed and van cameras in my neck of the woods if you habitually speed, and I am grateful for that.

The jury system seems to be somewhat of a barrier to successful conviction as well. Almost every member of the jury is likely to be a driver, and most will consider their own driving to be to a reasonably safe standard even where it isn't. There seems to be a strong undercurrent of "there by the grace of god go I",

I'm not claiming that cyclists are angels, but that's not a foundation of my argument. Instead it needs to be demonstrated that cycling causes sufficient issues to warrant the prioritisation of limited resources and a heavy-handed approach. That can't be demonstrated with the available evidence.

I thought it was changed to “road traffic collision” years ago for exactly this reason.

E.g. https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rs/road-safety/coll... 

What about tourists from abroad bringing their bikes? Would they be on bikes taking part in racing events? Would be funny to see the tour de France visit and all the bikes having to fit temporary plates front and back.

Also an admin headache for stolen bikes? 75k cars stolen in UK in 2020 compared to about 376k bikes per year.

The word accident does not absolve from blame or avoidable cause.  Air Accident investigators seem aware of this.

I think some of these changes are instigated by misguided political correctness campaigners.  Someone feels they have the only full understanding of language, even if it is just a fallacious belief, and then changes the language to avoid their own misconception which was never the proper meaning anyway.

Of course accidents that result from a chain of causation can be avoided if links in that chain can be changed or removed.

I generally stick to the speed limit, it saves fuel and I'm not in a rush to go anywhere. The speed I was on about was specifically in regard to the M5 and A30 heading down to St just. Driver said he knew where the cameras were and the days the police were out and where. Only ever had three speeding fines.

In urban areas it is mostly kids driving around at night.

Uesd to live in lewisham area of london and many roads had 20mph limits, these were routinely broken, all the local drivers know the camera placements so they just slow  then around them. Whilst driving at 20-22mph i was often overtaken or had cars quickly catch up and get stuck behind me. Also would say it was normal for one or two cars to cross just after the lights turn red as there is almost always a pause before the other cars on green get moving.

The trouble is that you then have a society where individuals or cliques can decide which laws apply (seriously) to them and which don't. I may decide it's OK to sometimes speed. Others will decide it's OK not to have car insurance. Others that it's OK to rob the rich (others) and give to the poor (themselves). Others that it's OK to kill people you don't like (non-Americans). If I'm right, how can I say that they are wrong when it's just a matter of opinion and convenience?

At least we cannot console ourselves with the fact that the only major problem with UK transport appears to be cyclists.

The political left wing liberal bias on this site is soooo predicable, even for apolitical subjects. You’ll tell me I got run over because of BREXIT next

How is it “left wing liberal bias” to mention Grant Shapps when discussing legislation being proposed by Grant Shapps?

It's obviously easier to blame that than to consider the alternative.

Left wing liberal is that meant to be an insult? Not sure whats wrong being liberal? Left wing, so maybe some social beliefs, like in many European countries?

Not sure about that. Certainly the area is popular, but that seems as much to be in spite of the prevailing local attitude as because of it. See the relocation of the Ride London route, and, a personal gripe of mine, the Council’s apparent eagerness to deter cyclists by slapping down chipping instead of proper tarmac when resurfacing.

(I realise this is more indicative of a certain anti-cycling element in the council specifically, but it does suggest a likeminded constituency to which they pander)

Why is it predictable? 

Grant Shapps apolitical?

You're quite right. I ignored your correct comma useage to get a cheap laugh. It is quite amusing, though, the idea of the death penalty in schools rather than ineffective detention or being told to stand outside the headmaster's office.

It's always worth going for the cheap laugh! 😀