In the news

All Boris bikes have a registration number clearly visible.

This means that Boris bikes are never ridden poorly, or illegally - well, it would if the registration number had the effect that is being mooted here.

Hitting pedestrians while RLJ is a "perceived risk"? Didn't give a way to cars while RLJ is a just "visible" rule-breaking? Going 50kmh downhill in Greenwich park is not a big deal? Overtaking at full speed on CS in the wrong direction is just a minor annoying thing?

Also, feeling unsafe it's a reaction to danger - is it not obvious?

Anyway, I wouldn't blame cyclists only - it's a general lack of respect and kindness in society (the roads are just another public space), and of course, the plates and fines won't help here.

But, and obviously, no Boris bike rider has ever done anything that you mention, because of the registration number. No?

Means we all get to have massive mudguards fitted to the back of our bikes so that the reg is visible enough on your skinny tubed Daccordi.

Fucking hell its bald Alan Sugar

But, and obviously, no Boris bike rider has ever done anything that you mention, because of the registration number.

That's actually a really interesting question. One would think that there would be examples of Boris bikes being used in crimes and the cardholder that rented them getting traced, but I can't find any on a quick Google. Probably because it's trivially easy either to steal a Boris bike or deface the registration. Similar to cloned plates on cars (or the current fashion simply not to have one on the front).

I wouldn't hugely oppose some kind of anti-RLJ device being fitted to bikes, but I can't imagine how you would make it simultaneously (i) not too expensive to install and (ii) hard to remove or disable.

But, and obviously, no Boris bike rider has ever done anything that you mention, because of the registration number. No?

To be fair, Cloak/Dagger never said that.

I'm in support of anything that means more responsible road usage and equally applied laws for all road users. I don't think it takes much to prove that reg plates will achieve neither of those things.

In most cases the physical risk of being hit by a bike is relatively low, yes, whereas the perception of the risk is greater. So “perceived risk” is a fair description. I didn’t say that every incident involving a bike was absolutely fine, just that the perception of danger seems more important than the actual risk to life / injury, which is usually quite low on bikes. If you don’t agree with that last part, you can look for stats on how many people are injured / killed in collisions with bikes, which show the rates are very low.

feeling unsafe it's a reaction to danger - is it not obvious

I don’t know what this means. Are you saying that because people feel unsafe there is danger? You realise that isn’t true, right?

I’m not saying that cyclists shouldn’t be better at obeying the rules of the road - I absolutely think they should - I’m saying that any rules brought in to deal with this are based more on perception of danger and a feeling that Something Has To Be Done than on a sober assessment of the actual risks.

we should have a govt. appointed person walking in front of each and every bike with a red flag

Hidden in all the noise about this Daily Mail red meat is the fact that Grant Shapps said this in the Times.

Daily Mail in exaggerating for clicks shocker.

I thought this was the HRH rip code.

I think they mean the perceived relative risk of cyclists versus other road traffic is disproportionate.

People are generally blind to the impact of motor vehicle traffic on their wellbeing and safety because it's been a mainstay for decades, while cyclists and their associate infrastructure are relatively novel.

None of the proposed actions are for prevention just accountability.
Its quite the fence to straddle, nothing really wrong with accountability through registration, insurance etc but is mostly un needed except for when its very clearly needed.
Kind of like "may contain nuts" written on bags of peanuts.

It's a question of whether the impact is disproportionate, isn't it? If it costs a bomb, is restrictive on liberties or puts people off, then the question is whether it is worth it for the purported (not demonstrated) effects.

it's like the Australian mandatory helmet law for cyclists. Seems like a pretty logical idea but didn't lead to a decline in mortality rates, but did lead to a decline in the uptake of cycling.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/aug/12/mandatory-bike-helmet-laws-do-more-harm-than-good-senate-hears

cyclists do not have speedometers and therefore cannot be held accountable for their speed to any reasonable standard.

This argument doesn't work.

Cars aren't fitted with blood alcohol meters, yet you can still get prosecuted for drink driving. It's up to the individual to be responsible for their actions, speeding would be covered in the same way.

But a non-working speedometer in a car is an MOT fail, suggesting its presence is an important part of a road-legal vehicle.

1986 act says speedo a legal requirement according to Google..

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/35/made

You know if you've had a drink, you don't know exactly what speed you're going.

If that stupid fire had only waited 6 hours, the monsoon would’ve doused it. Instead we get travel disruptions x 2.

Any clue why they’ve shut most entrances to Victoria? Police and unarmed response on scene, sole access through south.

That would be my main concern, if such a law was passed, fewer people would see cycling as a viable alternative to other modes of transport.
Really flagged up the Daily Mail for the headline, what a shitpit of a newspaper it really is.

Australian mandatory helmet law for cyclists. Seems like a pretty logical idea but didn't lead to a decline in mortality rates, but did lead to a decline in the uptake of cycling.

There used to be a long-running thread on here about helmets, but IIRC the upshot was that the evidence for their efficacy is pretty limited. The regulations on what you can sell as a bicycle helmet are minimal and there is some evidence that drivers are more likely to act like dicks around you if they can't see the squishy human.

shut most entrances to Victoria?

big flood apparently

Depending on age /type of vehicle.

An old af car doesn't have a speedo requirement, for example, and can still be done for speeding.

What's that got to do with the drink driving analogy?