Ken may be a berk, but...

Received this from TFL

Registration Plates for Cyclists

Thank you for your email of 28 July 2006 regarding the Mayors comments
on cycle registration. I have been asked to reply on his behalf.

We have seen initial assessments from Transport for London that show
that a bike registration scheme would face a number of practical
problems, and could discourage cycling, whereas the aim is to carry on
increasing the numbers of cyclists.

Given that such a scheme would have to be at least partly
self-financing the cost of registering cycles would also have to be
passed onto cyclists, again discouraging cycling. A registration scheme
could therefore only ever be seen as a difficult last resort.
Therefore, this will not be happening in the near future.

"POHB" wrote in message
ups.com...
Received this from TFL

Registration Plates for Cyclists

Thank you for your email of 28 July 2006 regarding the Mayors comments
on cycle registration. I have been asked to reply on his behalf.

We have seen initial assessments from Transport for London that show
that a bike registration scheme would face a number of practical
problems, and could discourage cycling, whereas the aim is to carry on
increasing the numbers of cyclists.

Given that such a scheme would have to be at least partly
self-financing the cost of registering cycles would also have to be
passed onto cyclists, again discouraging cycling. A registration scheme
could therefore only ever be seen as a difficult last resort.
Therefore, this will not be happening in the near future.

Well, duh!

I think Ken, maybe inadvertently, has just raised the subject again of bad
usage of cycles. Tonight I saw seven cyclists on a mile stretch home. Only
one had a front light, two had a rear light, two were using the road. One
had had three pints of lager. That one was, obviously, me .. but I was also
the only one with two lights on my bike (well, actually five, but only two
in use as I didn't have my bottle battery).

This sort of usage is unacceptable, but the same point I keep getting told
is "dangerous roads" and "other road users". This is comlete bllx and just
an excuse. However, there is a decent alternative needed to rebuff these
comments and get into the pysche of the average person that it's not
acceptable behaviour.

It'll never happen though.

Following on from elyob's message. . .
I think Ken, maybe inadvertently, has just raised the subject again of bad
usage of cycles. Tonight I saw seven cyclists on a mile stretch home. Only
one had a front light, two had a rear light, two were using the road. One
had had three pints of lager. That one was, obviously, me .. but I was also
the only one with two lights on my bike (well, actually five, but only two
in use as I didn't have my bottle battery).

This just goes to show how cyclists appear to have congenital feebleness
of judgement...

....fancy drinking lager!


OK. Each to their own. (Or find the few and far between real cider
pubs and take a couple of lemonade bottles for take-aways)


But to follow up your serious point. If I knew the answer to the
problem then I'd be telling you. Perhaps 10% (of your evening's
observations) is lack of training - some things aren't obvious and the
rest is '21st century - don't give a toss- attitudes.

Since most of what you saw tonight wasn't legal, adding another thing
that isn't legal won't make a blind bit of difference. So we agree: A
number-plate-for-cyclists law would be stupid and we agree the
proportion of cyclists without a clue [1] or who don't give a damn is
put of control.

Bummer isn't it?

[1] In London. I saw it when I went there a couple of years ago. ! !
and !. The worst we get in the country is "everyone cycle on the
pavement".

--
PETER FOX Not the same bra business went bust.

www.eminent.demon.co.uk - Lots for cyclists