cycle licence & Jay walking law


cycle licence & Jay walking law

Postby kolya » 21 Nov 2005, 1:38pm

I am a london cyclist of 25+ years. I passed my CPT Proficiency test when I was 10 with flying colours (highest in my borough, 97%) and became a semi-pro cyclist in my teen years (track & road racing). I have been a cycle courier & have had many accidents due to my own fault and those of others. I write these facts so you can hopefully see that I am being objective when I say this:

London cyclists should be required to have a "cyclists number plate", and in order to get this they must do a cycling proficiency test.

Along with this, pedestrians in London should abide to a "jay walking" law between the hours of 8-10 am and 5-7pm every week day. If they walkout "willy nilly" causing an accident then they should be held responsible for "jay walking".

I truly believe, after many discussions with fellow cyclists and pedestrians that this is a sensible and reasonable suggestion.

I know this will raise arms in the camp, with people shouting "blah blah this and blah blah that" about such proposals. But, I am sick and tired of

1. poor cyclists making the roads dangerous for other users and pedestrians (and giving good cyclists a bad name)

2. Pedestrians treating the road/pavement as some kind of Nintendo risk game.

I have had too many near misses because of these people and I'm tired of it.

If a car, motorbike or van don't use the pavement or run the lights to get somewhere (as they'd be arrested/fined/points on their licence) why do cyclists? Is it because they can? I can do many things but some of them are bad and so I don't do them.

If my fellow cycling comrades do not treat other road users with respect then how do you expect this in return. Ok, so there are alot of A-holes who are just out there to create hell for us on the road, but why are there so many cyclists doing this?!

I am angry at being treated like a second rate road user because of a selection of muppets being crap on their bikes & pedestrians not realising it hurts when they are hit by a cyclist.

Regards, your disgruntled road cyclist.


Re:cycle licence & Jay walking law

Postby Vicarious » 21 Nov 2005, 2:29pm

disgruntled road cyclist.

I s'pose that somebody who was actually vain about his cycling skills would soon have a fall, whereas somebody who is merely proud of them, might go on for a longer time.

How about the positive virtue of Humility, and not just the contary virtue of Pride, in regard to
the ethics of cycling? That is the way THEY do it, but not I!


Re:cycle licence & Jay walking law

Postby pwward » 21 Nov 2005, 2:33pm

This all sounds a bit london-centric to me. Maybe you need a break from life in London? "Ease the pressure..."


Re:cycle licence & Jay walking law

Postby kolya » 21 Nov 2005, 2:38pm

there is a distinct difference with speaking honestly and with vanity mr vicarious. See beyond the ego and read the gripe. Maybe it is london centric, but that's usually what happens when you live in london.

If you want a discussion about humility and pride then maybe go and extrapulate somewhere else. Otherwise, maybe just discuss the topic in question and lay off the philosophising.


Re:cycle licence & Jay walking law

Postby gar » 21 Nov 2005, 5:32pm

Yes I've only ever cycled either right in the middle of town or not at all. The train gets me there.

Past the Elephant looks very hairy indeed and not something I would want to do more than once in a blue moon.

Cycling up to Hampstead from Carter lane and other places the pavement seemed ideal places to cycle, and with plenty of encouragement for two wheel self propelled effort


Re:cycle licence & Jay walking law

Postby mike6 » 23 Nov 2005, 8:29pm

Would visiting cyclists be halted and tested on the city boundary?
Motor vehicle drivers are tested, supposedly, some drive as if they have never been tested, would cyclists be any different?
Are you happy to pay to be tested whilst others just cycle regardless?
Would those that look down on you upgrade you from second to firstclass citizen if you had a licence plate?
Would you want the police to devote time to checking cyclists qualifications?
I have to agree with the poster that suggested you just unwind.


Re:cycle licence & Jay walking law

Postby gar » 25 Nov 2005, 4:26am

Pedestrians treating the road/pavement as some kind of Nintendo risk game.

Wotz Nintendo? but yes they do. Perhaps they should have licence plates too?


Re:cycle licence & Jay walking law

Postby gar » 25 Nov 2005, 4:27am

and helmets.... as well as car drivers having them.


Re:cycle licence & Jay walking law

Postby bikerdave » 25 Nov 2005, 6:02pm

I understand your fustrations kolya but have you thought it through thoroughly?

Who would fund your proposals?

A minority of drivers behave terribly despite significant regulation, would some cyclists be any different?

These boards are full of incidents that can put people off cycling, surely more costs and hassle would only put more off with knock on effects for bike shops/prices?

It's a very imperfect plan but leading by example wether cycling walking or driving strikes me as the best compromise.


Re:cycle licence & Jay walking law

Postby bovlomov » 26 Nov 2005, 12:11am

The prevailing attitude of our government - and it seems many citizens - is that all of society's ills can be cured by throwing a few new rules and regulations around. ("A new law!! That should do it!")

But many of these things could be helped by applying the ones we already have.

It is already illegal for drivers to drive dangerously. It is already illegal for cyclists to ride on the pavements, without lights, etc.

Instead of wasting money on new legislation, spend a bit on education. Cycling proficiency tests for children don't get much funding, at least in my area.

And how about encouraging a bit of mutual respect between cyclists, drivers and pedestrians? Almost all of road injuries are down to a road user imagining that he is the only one that exists, or that his need to get from A to B is a priority. As long as this attitude persists no amount of laws will make the roads safer.


Re:cycle licence & Jay walking law

Postby gar » 26 Nov 2005, 7:52am

As a non political approach, ie one dealt with at a personal level, bovmolov's way of thinking is a pretty good one.

I sat in a DfT transport select committee parliament once on cycling and of all the members, only one had walked from the station that morning, and none of the others had bikes at all..... interesting discussion?


Re:cycle licence & Jay walking law

Postby bovlomov » 26 Nov 2005, 10:49pm

What happens at a DfT transport select committee? Were you there as a participant, or as an onlooker?


Re:cycle licence & Jay walking law

Postby gar » 27 Nov 2005, 6:21am

I am glad that somebody should ask.
Select committees do allow democratic participation from the public benches, if you can catch the chairman's eye... but generally you have to be recognised by him to catch it.

I'll post you back with a link in a moment; you might enjoy the link... and the public benches.... and even democratic participation.


Re:cycle licence & Jay walking law

Postby gar » 27 Nov 2005, 6:37am

On this site you will see "written evidence" mentioned a lot. If you want to give written evidence contact the Committee secretary
and ask him/her to send you the committee meeting details regularly so that you can scan it for your chosen subjects.
Then write up your opinion and send it off email for the committee to consider.

If you have a group to dicuss it... then send it in the name of the group as your views can get publicity however inadequate the opinion! It is easier for the press to slang off a "Committee chairman" ... than it is to slang off Mr Bovlomov... which is rather personal.

We could for example send some opinions facts in the name of
"CTC message board user group" but CTC already does that for us effectively, so it might well be a duplication of received CTC opinion.

If you want to know more please post again.

Again as a matter of interest, although I am not a
Member of the said place , I have in the past spoken in Standing committees which does have legislative powers. Select committee does not.

A member of the public CAN speak from the
public gallery of the parliamentary chamber
as long as he can catch the eye of the ...chairman.... in that case Mr Speaker Martin.
If you know the chamber .... it has to be very well planned .... with prior agreement.

In the last session one gentleman did do so.


Re:cycle licence & Jay walking law

Postby alipabs » 14 Jan 2006, 8:41pm

Bovlomov has a good point. But in this car centric selfish age how do you encourage people to show respect for others on the road when they believe they are always right and don't care about anyone but themselves?
I commute to work in and around Bristol and few drivers acknowledge law abiding cyclists or pedestrians, clipping them with over expanded wing mirrors, not dipping headlights on unlight roads, shouting abuse at you to get off the road or in some cases actually trying to knock cyclists off! It is the latest sport you know, amongst the Clarkson types in Bristol! Car drivers who moan at cyclists on pavements should take a long hard look at fellow motorists mounting kerbs with gay abandon missing pedestians by inches and swearing at them to move because they can't drive their over inflated carbon dioxide 4x4s past on a normal road.( It happened on our road recently) Any ideas on how to show them you exist and have the same rights as they do?