I don't really know anything about London's Mayor, Ken Livingstone, but he doesn't really seem to be in close touch with reality if this report in the Times Online is anything to go by:
Cyclists in London could be made to fit numberplates to their bikes under plans being drawn up by Ken Livingstone, the capital's mayor.
All bicycles would be registered so that riders breaking the law, by cycling on pavements or going through red lights, could be caught on traffic cameras. Mr Livingstone is also investigating a possible ban on jaywalking, which is illegal in some countries.
Speaking on the London radio station LBC yesterday, Mr Livingstone said: "I think, I'm now persuaded, we should actually say that bikes and their owners should be registered.
"There should be a numberplate on the back so that the ones breaking the law, we can get them off the cameras. It's the only way you can do it."
Mr Livingstone was responding to a listener's question about what the mayor would do to stop cyclists using the capital's pavements.
What? He's just making up this stuff in response to a caller – on talkback radio?!? What a statesman!
Asked if that meant licence plates for bicycles, he said: "Yes, so you can catch the ones — the ones that are obeying the law, it makes no difference — but the ones who are going over red lights, driving on pavements, you get 'em."
Bollocks to that. Of course it makes a difference – it would have an impact on all riders, as Jakob Widerberg points out:
Interesting tactic - get more people to cycle to work and then introduce charges for the privilege (once you're a registered bicycle owner, you're damn sure to have to pay bicycle tax).
And from Mike Atherton on Londonist:
We get pissed off at the odd pavement peddler too, but tarring everyone who rides a bike with the same brush seems a tad harsh. Part of the beauty of the bicycle is that it's cheap, easy and most importantly green. As Edmund King of the RAC Foundation said "We need to encourage cycling rather than put people off."
Here we go again
With a strong sense of déjà vu, I'd be directing Mr Livingstone to an excellent entry by Chris Gerhard (made in April, following a similar suggestion by Baron Howarth):
Consider the costs? There are about 30,000,000 bikes in Britain. Say it costs £10 to administer the registration. That would be £300M straight away. This is just so the police may be able to catch a cyclist jumping lights, something it is surprisingly easy to do now if they wanted to.
Consider the effectiveness. Number plates on cars don't stop them jumping lights or speeding so there is no reason to think this measure would be effective for cyclists.
Consider the size of a number plate. It has to be unique to cope with the 30 million bikes so seven digits. Seven digits on the back of a push bike. Pretty big then or not readable. If it is big that will make most bikes, like the ones I ride to work on illegal as there is no room for a number plate once you have lights, reflectors etc. All “racing” bikes would be illegal and most mountain bikes.
Consider the effect on cycling. Where as registering motor vehicles does not deter motoring you can be sure that registering bicycles would deter cycling. If the cyclist is bearing the cost of registration then that will decrease the number of bikes out there, if they don't then that £300 million will have to be found from taxation. It would seem unjust for the cost of registration to be greater than the cheapest car, which is £0. Then there is the cost of the physical plate.
Given that currently the obesity is the biggest health problem the country faces and that is partly put down to a sedentary life style taking steps that would discourage one of the best ways to keep fit seems, bonkers.
Worth considering?
Recognising the above, Peter Chen reckons the idea could still be worth considering:
However, the idea has some significant merits, including:
improving the behaviour of cyclists - something most of us have been guilty of in the past, and
importantly - improving the relationship between cyclists and drivers, something that ... in my experience at least ... appears to be pretty poor.
While the idea is highly problematic, it shouldn't be discounted out of hand. One of the core problems of road safety and planning for cyclists is that we aren't considered legitimate road users by many people. Having responsibilities as well as rights might be useful approach here.
I'm not entirely sold on this argument. Firstly, I think cyclists who routinely flout the road rules are highly unlikely to comply with a number plate regulation, so it would have a minimal impact on improving the behaviour of cyclists.
And for the same reason it wouldn't improve the relationship between cyclists and motorists: it would just be another thing for the Nigel Havers types of this world to beat us up about. I can already hear it: "Those bloody ratbag cyclists, always riding on the footpaths and jumping red lights. They don't pay their way and now we've got proof, look – they don't display their number plates!"
No, it's an utterly ridiculous idea: too costly, unenforceable, and detrimental to the broader social benefits of cycling. Let's hope this one goes the way of most politicians' promises.
The idea is the most ridicules one he has come up so far! Let's introduce a charge/fine for everything instead of even bother to do something to improve transport conditions.
In the UK there is a culture of not respecting traffic lights and rules among both - cyclists and pedestrians. I have no doubt that eventually, pedestrians will have to display number plate on their asses, but until then, this is unfair and pointless, in the same way as speed cameras will flash you for doing a few miles over the illogical limit while not protecting you from tailgaters etc.
More importantly, the bicycle is what it is, because it is free to use, and being a tool rather then machine, it should never be considered for any kind of taxation/registration. Registering bikes would be equivalent to registering any other tools such as shopping trolleys, forks, knifes...
In the first place, he should never be allowed to push for cycling and force so many people to die on the unsafe roads, and if we survive the unfit drivers, we will than die of lung cancer induced by dangerous chemicals that we would normally breathe in much lower quantities if it wasn't for cycling. In other words: having so many hazards such as a single lane road halved to make way for cycle path that has to be driven over by cars because the remaining half lane is nowhere near wide enough for them, does not make for safe cycling! Same as the numerous ridiculously layed out cycle paths that go through phone boxes, start and end at random, go along dangerous roads and most often come to a dead end...
I often cycle with my girlfriend but would never-ever let her cycle in London! It is sad that we have to use our car to get anywhere safe enough for cycling. And when we finally get there, surrounded by trees and grass in the middle of nowhere, there is a shouting old woman pointing at something that looks like a sign, saying no cycling!!!!
Until all this is sorted, people shouldn't complain about cyclists using foot paths and similar. However, many cyclist do not have driving licence and lack important traffic experience, and many would benefit from some sort of basic training that would teach acceptable ways of riding as well as defensive riding...
Dreams aside, it is always easier to tax everything and claim that is the answer to all the problems. What sir? You are sick and the NHS can't treat you until the next millennium due to high demand for treatment? Well, let us introduce congestion charge for the NHS and problem solved...
Ken Livingstone is an idiot!
There's also the point that some footpaths are marked as shared paths, so clearly whatever perceived danger bicycles present to pedestrian traffic it is not all-encompassing.
Comments
It might be more beneficial to look at the reasons why cyclists flout the laws and address those issues.
Cycling on footpaths is one of the issues that needs to be looked at. I have been guilty of this one myself especially when I'm following a shared footpath/cyclepath that just suddenly ends, leaving me stranded on a one-way street going the wrong way.
I think we need to ask what the problem with cycling on a footpath is.
Is cycling on footpaths dangerous to pedestrians in general? If so then even children should be banned from cycling on the footpath.
Does cycling on footpaths only put pedestrians at risk only if the bike is a certain length or width? In that case, perhaps cycling should be legal on footpaths if the bikes conform to some set of pre-determined specifications.
Does cycling on footpaths only present a risk to pedestrians if the cyclist is travelling above a particular speed? In that case, cycling on footpaths should be legel if you are travelling slow enough. If the cyclist wants to go faster they should use the road.
If all footpaths were re-designated shared pedestrian/cycling zones, with a speed limit for bicycles, we would automatically dramatically increase the number of bike paths in the country overnight.