Comments

4 responses to “License Plates for Cycles ?”

1. 2006/04/21

   alecm

   re: License Plates for Cycles ?

   Audio starts at 25:33 ; the debate will be in the Lords next week.

   Reply
2. 2006/04/22

   Stephen Usher

   re: License Plates for Cycles ?

   Of course, if you have a license plate on a bicycle you have to recover the cost of administering it, so obviously you’ll need to charge the owners of bicycles. It also means that you now have a register for each cycle owner, who is, of course, using the road and hence should contribute to the up keep of the infrastructure so needs to pay for a road fund license. And while we’re at it, cycles can cause terrible injury to pedestrians and can cuase road traffic accidents, so, of course, they need insurance…

   So, the up-shot of this idea “to protect the public” from irresponsible would be a huge boost of revenue for the treasury and insurance companies and a decrease in bike ownership.

   Hmm.. methinks that the medicine in worse than the disease.

   Reply
3. 2006/04/23

   87.254.64.230

   re: License Plates for Cycles ?

   What a brilliant way to decrease bike ownership and the diminish further the average health and physical fitness of the general populace.

   What next? License plates, insurance & PAVEMENT tax for those irresponsible enough to endanger their health by walking?

   Policiticians = short sighted (rarely no further than five years) idiots, who give more credance to the remote political whims of newspaper owners more burdened with money than interest in truth, accuracy or the interests of the public (as opposed to the ‘public interest’)

   I give up. <<rolleyes>>

   Reply
4. 2006/09/16

   Maurice Courcha

   re: License Plates for Cycles ?

   ‘For any of the cycling fraternity who supported the recent DEFRA process to ban “mechanically propelled vehicles” – 4×4, dirtbikes, etc – from RUPPs and other forms of Green Lane, I’d like to say a big hello!’

   I am dissapointed that there are some cyclists who want to interfere with the land access rights of those who participate in other kinds of recreational activities. The underlying assumption is that because vehicles in the countryside are considered a bad thing then any kind of recreational motoring is not really a legitimate recreational activity and deserves to be curtailed. When it comes to so called ‘green lanes’ there is also the assumption that walkers, cyclists and horseriders have a greater right to use them than drivers and if these drivers inconveniance them by making noise or ruts then these drivers ought to banned.

   I am speaking for other green lane drivers when I say I am fed up with being messed around over access by pressure groups and public officials and section 61 and 62 of NERC is the last straw. I now disregard the law that makes RUPPs into Restricted Byways and carry on driving along them. Illegal yes but not as anti social as jumping traffic lights and riding at night with no lights.

   I suggest that cyclists should try opening up the the many disused bridleways if they want more vehicle free routes.

   Reply