Number plates for pedal cycles



davek wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
>>never succumbs to inappropriate knee-jerk
>>reactions (c.f. their position on cycle helmets).

>
> That would be a reference to the /failed/ Martlew bill? The bill that
> was /rejected/ by a majority of the MPs who even bothered to vote?


Not really. Take a look at all the government websites concerned with
cycling or road safety. They recommend helmets.

--
Matt B
 
davek wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
>>QED.

>
>
> I take this as an indication of agreement that all road users have
> equal rights.


Why - when they obviously haven't?

--
Matt B
 
davek wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>this is not a comparison but a simple fact.

>
> Maybe, but it's not strictly relevant to this discussion because MattB
> is [ab]using the concept of cycle numbering to contrive a justification
> for /getting rid of/ numbering schemes relating to other vehicles.


And what a dismal failure it has been so far - all we see are *good*
reasons to have number plates on everything ;-)

> Btw, any suggestion you may have read in this thread that
> cycle/pedestrian numbering is a good idea is not to be taken entirely
> seriously.


Unless you are also a motorist.

--
Matt B
 
On 14 Dec 2005 03:33:11 -0800, "The Luggage" <[email protected]> wrote:
>ian henden wrote:
>> Section 6.36. After section 6.35, add section 6.36 as follows:
>> Section 6.36. Riding abreast, curving to and fro.
>> (1) It shall be unlawful to ride abreast on bicycles upon any highway or
>> public street, or to ride curving to and fro thereon. It shall be unlawful for
>> bicycles to be ridden abreast on the sidewalks of the city, except when passing.
>> (2) A person who violates this section is responsible for a civil
>> infraction.

>
>And this one means that it is illegal to overtake another cyclist,
>unless you're on the sidewalk!


It also means you need a full-suspension MTB, because you'll be going straight
through that karst pothole from hell, or the curving to and fro will land you in
front of a judge.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:37:06 +0000, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alan Braggins wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Matt B wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>In certain US states _all_ pedal cycles have to display plates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Name two!
>>>>>
>>>>>Take your pick:
>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/847tt
>>>>
>>>>Not especially helpful. You haven't actually provided links to any.
>>>>Perhaps you could oblige the inquiring minds by listing all of them.
>>>
>>>Take it from me, there are plenty of places in the US where it is a
>>>legal requirement for a bicycle to carry a license plate for use on
>>>public road.

>>
>> Then you'll have no problem naming two states and providing some evidence,
>> will you? Unless, of course, you are a lying troll.

>
> Sheesh...
>
> "The State of California requires a bicycle license for any bicycle used
> on any street. Licenses can be obtained for $3 from the city License and
> Permit Division at City Hall. They must be renewed every three years.
> Send the following information:..." [1]
>
> "Minnesota Statute 168C requires that bicycles owned by Minnesota
> residents must be licensed. A bicycle license is valid for three years
> from the year of issuance." [2]
>
> [1] http://tinyurl.com/9wroh
> [2] http://tinyurl.com/dorwd


Far from conclusive. I remember when I used to have to have a licence
for my dog. He didn't have to wear a plate.

Also if you go and take a look most of Minnesota Statute 168C has been
repealed. It would also be rather fun to go along with a home-built bike
which obviously doesn't have a make, with different wheel-sizes front and
back. I also assume they mean number of gears - rather than number of
speeds - not sure why they need this as it is quite easy to change.

California seems rather strange - <URL:http://tinyurl.com/7qnj2> seems
to indicate that bicycles don't have to be licensed in Huntingdon Beach
(which as far as I know is still part of California). Also there isn't
a license plate (sic) as such - just a little sticker that fits on the
seat tube.

Also as the cost is so low ($3 for 3 years in your quoted reference) it
doesn't seem cost effective to keep the scheme running. Just the same
as radio and dog licences.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
 
Matt B wrote:
> And what a dismal failure it has been so far


Hardly surprising given that your argument is arrant nonsense.

> Unless you are also a motorist.


Wrong as wrong can be. I and most other URCers are also motorists, yet
not one of us agrees with you.

You really are in a world of your own.

d.
 
Matt B wrote:
> Not really. Take a look at all the government websites concerned with
> cycling or road safety. They recommend helmets.


Fortunately, such documents don't yet form part of the constitution.
I'm not sure they even count as official policy.

d.
 
Andy Leighton wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:37:06 +0000, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>"The State of California requires a bicycle license for any bicycle used
>>on any street. Licenses can be obtained for $3 from the city License and
>>Permit Division at City Hall. They must be renewed every three years.
>>Send the following information:..." [1]
>>
>>"Minnesota Statute 168C requires that bicycles owned by Minnesota
>>residents must be licensed. A bicycle license is valid for three years
>>from the year of issuance." [2]
>>
>>[1] http://tinyurl.com/9wroh
>>[2] http://tinyurl.com/dorwd

>
> Far from conclusive. I remember when I used to have to have a licence
> for my dog. He didn't have to wear a plate.


That'd be a good start. Eliminate number plates.

> Also if you go and take a look most of Minnesota Statute 168C has been
> repealed.


Ah, so vehicle licensing isn't sacrosanct - good ;-)

> It would also be rather fun to go along with a home-built bike
> which obviously doesn't have a make, with different wheel-sizes front and
> back. I also assume they mean number of gears - rather than number of
> speeds - not sure why they need this as it is quite easy to change.


Yes, like registering those cars which look different colours from
different angles :)

> California seems rather strange - <URL:http://tinyurl.com/7qnj2> seems
> to indicate that bicycles don't have to be licensed in Huntingdon Beach
> (which as far as I know is still part of California). Also there isn't
> a license plate (sic) as such - just a little sticker that fits on the
> seat tube.
>
> Also as the cost is so low ($3 for 3 years in your quoted reference) it
> doesn't seem cost effective to keep the scheme running. Just the same
> as radio and dog licences.


It would seem you *can* have a licence then *without* paying £155 - good.

--
Matt B
 
[email protected] wrote:


> And what to do about those dastardly tax-dodging scroungers who go
> bare-footed ?


make them walk on the pavement; and no sneaky crossing the road either.
Perhaps the police could issue one day permits, a bit like the
congestion charge, with all this spare time from not harassing poor
beleagured drivers with speed camera fines.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:58:07 +0000, Matt B wrote:

>
>
> Now stand back and think about how daft that is for a moment. When the
> Victorians had a similar problem fitting a railway network in what did
> *they* do? (clue: our world is three dimensional).
>

Clue: they seriously wanted to knock down Southwark Cathedral. Thank God
they didn't.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:58:07 +0000, Matt B wrote:

> Now stand back and think about how daft that is for a moment. When the
> Victorians had a similar problem fitting a railway network in what did
> *they* do? (clue: our world is three dimensional).


I once had the pleasure of going on a London Appreciation Society
walking tour of Somers Town.
Adam Joseph told of how 1/4 million poor people where simply turfed out
onto the street to make way for the Euston station and railways.
 
In article <[email protected]>, John Hearns
([email protected]) wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:58:07 +0000, Matt B wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Now stand back and think about how daft that is for a moment. When the
> > Victorians had a similar problem fitting a railway network in what did
> > *they* do? (clue: our world is three dimensional).
> >

> Clue: they seriously wanted to knock down Southwark Cathedral. Thank God
> they didn't.


On the other hand, if they had, the Nut Mines would not stand where they
do and I might have a better view than I do now :)

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
The entire population of Uxbridge has no idea that it actually doesn't
exist.
 
John Hearns wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:58:07 +0000, Matt B wrote:
>
>>Now stand back and think about how daft that is for a moment. When the
>>Victorians had a similar problem fitting a railway network in what did
>>*they* do? (clue: our world is three dimensional).

>
> Clue: they seriously wanted to knock down Southwark Cathedral. Thank God
> they didn't.


Do you know what the families who lived where Southwark Cathedral is
said when they were told what was going to happen to *their* homes - to
make way for it?

--
Matt B
 
Well, we don't want a police state where carrying of ID in public
becomes compulsory because every citizen is assumed to be a criminal by
default, so I guess a line has to drawn somewhere, and I think
motorised/non-motorised is a sensible place to draw it. For cars number
plates are just about acceptable because cars are potentially very
dangerous and number plates offset the priviledge of being a physically
protected driver competing with vulnerable pedestrians. And cars do
kill and maim thousands of innocent bystanders every year, while for
cyclists this number is dimishingly small.

Also, considering the huge economic benefits of cycling, I don't think
it's a good idea to discourage it any more than it is already actively
discouraged - just for the sake of punishing one or two more yobs every
year. Despite small increases in recent years, the numbers of cyclists
in this country are still laughable by international (and historic)
standards.
 
John Hearns wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:58:07 +0000, Matt B wrote:
>
>
>>Now stand back and think about how daft that is for a moment. When the
>>Victorians had a similar problem fitting a railway network in what did
>>*they* do? (clue: our world is three dimensional).

>
>
> I once had the pleasure of going on a London Appreciation Society
> walking tour of Somers Town.
> Adam Joseph told of how 1/4 million poor people where simply turfed out
> onto the street to make way for the Euston station and railways.


The joys of pre public enquiry days ;-) Where would we be now though if
the Victorians were as constrained as we are when it comes to
infrastructure building.

--
Matt B
 
Kinetic wrote:
> Well, we don't want a police state where carrying of ID in public
> becomes compulsory because every citizen is assumed to be a criminal by
> default, so I guess a line has to drawn somewhere,


Why compromise that admirable ideal.

> and I think
> motorised/non-motorised is a sensible place to draw it.


What's sensible about having a number plate on, say, a road roller which
cannot go faster than a pedestrian, yet not having one on, say, an
enclosed recumbent?

> For cars number
> plates are just about acceptable because cars are potentially very
> dangerous and number plates offset the priviledge of being a physically
> protected driver competing with vulnerable pedestrians.


And in what way is it acceptable then for unprotected motorcyclists?

> And cars do
> kill and maim thousands of innocent bystanders every year,
> cyclists this number is dimishingly small.


How do number plates affect that statistic? Would cars kill more with
no plates?

> Also, considering the huge economic benefits of cycling, I don't think
> it's a good idea to discourage it any more than it is already actively
> discouraged - just for the sake of punishing one or two more yobs every
> year.


Why would plates discourage cycling? Perhaps we should remove the need
for plates on hybrid cars - to encourage their use.

> Despite small increases in recent years, the numbers of cyclists
> in this country are still laughable by international (and historic)
> standards.


Because of our poor infrastructure I would imagine.

--
Matt B
 
"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Richard Webb wrote:
> >>This government wants something not far short of that with ID cards.
> >>How can we argue against it, yet support number plates on motor

vehicles?
> >
> > Err operating a motor vehicle is voluntary.

>
> How is that relevant? Living in the UK is voluntary.


Being born in the UK is not voluntary, choosing to drive/own a car in the UK
at a later date is voluntary.

BTW, I didn't volunteer to be born in England but did volunteer to drive in
the UK, did volunteer to live outside the UK (coincidentally in Manitoba
where bicycle number plates were compulsory) have volunteered to live back
in the UK and volunteered to drive in the UK again. But wtf has all this got
to do with someone being mugged by a POB, the mugger could have been on
foot, in-line skates, a stolen motorbike, disabled carriage, you name it.