BBC: Is this the new age of the train?

Tony Polson wrote:
> Charlie Hulme <info@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Why not simply arrest and charge the people found to be
>> engaging in the anti-social measures?
>
>
> Because with no registration numbers, they are almost impossible to
> identify.

Not if they are caught red-handed, which should be easy
since it happens all the time, if the uk.railway
anti-cyclist campaign is to be believed. Powers
already exist for on-the-spot fines for pavement
cycling.

In any case, a registration plate only identifies
the owner, not the rider. The rider will be as easy
to identify as any other criminal. How would
you sanction someone who did not have a registration,
since they would be so hard to identify?

> Vehicle registration numbers are a key piece of evidence in
> many successful prosecutions - why should this not apply to cyclists?
>

Because it's just not a realistic idea. Even if it
could be implemented, it would deter people from cycling.
This would be bad for the nation's health, and bad
for the environment.

Charlie

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:04:25 +0100, Charlie Hulme
<info@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote:

>Tony Polson wrote:
>> Charlie Hulme <info@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Why not simply arrest and charge the people found to be
>>> engaging in the anti-social measures?
>>
>>
>> Because with no registration numbers, they are almost impossible to
>> identify.
>
>Not if they are caught red-handed, which should be easy
>since it happens all the time,
>
But not always caught by someone with the powers to require positive
identification of driver/rider and vehicle or to detain someone wuntil
that can be done. That is one of the principle reasons that motor
vehicles are required to display licence plates.

>if the uk.railway
>anti-cyclist campaign is to be believed. Powers
>already exist for on-the-spot fines for pavement
>cycling.
>
Only exerciseable by a small percentage of the community.

>In any case, a registration plate only identifies
>the owner, not the rider.
>
The same applies to motor vehicles. I wonder why that reason didn't
stop the introduction of laws to display registration marks on motor
vehicles ?

>The rider will be as easy
>to identify as any other criminal. How would
>you sanction someone who did not have a registration,
>since they would be so hard to identify?
>
Arrest of rider and confiscation of vehicle, the same as occurs with
motor vehicles; and "owner liability".

>> Vehicle registration numbers are a key piece of evidence in
>> many successful prosecutions - why should this not apply to cyclists?
>>
>
>Because it's just not a realistic idea. Even if it
>could be implemented, it would deter people from cycling.
>This would be bad for the nation's health, and bad
>for the environment.
>
Which offences are you trying to evade liability for ?

In message <48673693.131504381@news.>, at 07:17:38 on Sun,
29 Jun 2008, Neil Williams <wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk> remarked:

>Nik Morgan just stated "You must be rich to be able to travel on turn
>up and go rail tickets". This is not entirely true.

It also depends a little on the length of the journey. A turn up and go
ticket from Nottingham to Derby (which is also only available as a day
return at £4.50 offpeak, £5.50 peak) is comparable with the cost of
parking.
--
Roland Perry

On 29 Jun, 08:32, nik.morgan <nik.mor...@talktalk.net> wrote:
> Just because it's cheap is not an excuse to allow the urban terrorism some
> cyclists display to persist.
>
> Sadly, as with most things, it's the relatively antisocial few that spoil it
> for everyone else.

Indeed - and the CTC was forced yersterday to advise cyclists NOT to
break the rules of the road, even if 'it meant they felt safer' (cf
excuse for doing as they pleased, sticking two fingers up to rules
they think don't apply to them)

On 29 Jun, 13:12, David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhS...@spidacom.co.uk>
wrote:
> "The introduction of the fixed
> penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel
> obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show
> consideration to other pavement users when doing so.

i.e They get off and walk, pushing said cycle......

On 29 Jun, 23:27, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
wrote:
> And it is a fact that most home insurance policies cover you against
> legal liability for injury or property damage caused while riding a
> bicycle.

......In places where it is legal to do so, which doesn't include
pavements that aren't designated cycle paths in any way.

Same as your car insurance. Try making a claim, saying you knocked
someone over on the footpath!

They'll laugh you into court......

Tony Polson wrote:
> Charlie Hulme <info@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote:
>> The problems people here take a delight in moaning
>> about are nothing to do with knowledge and training,
>> but all to do with simple courtesy and common sense.
>
> ... two characteristics which seem to be completely lacking in a hard
> core of aggressively anti-social cyclists.
>

.... and of motorists, and pedestrians, and Christians, and
Vegetarians, and antidisestablishmentarians....


Charlie

Chris wrote:
> On 29 Jun, 23:27, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
> wrote:
>> And it is a fact that most home insurance policies cover you against
>> legal liability for injury or property damage caused while riding a
>> bicycle.
>
> .....In places where it is legal to do so, which doesn't include
> pavements that aren't designated cycle paths in any way.
>
> Same as your car insurance. Try making a claim, saying you knocked
> someone over on the footpath!
>
> They'll laugh you into court......

Surely your insurance company would have to pay out to the
unfortunate pedestrian?

Charlie

On 30 Jun, 10:46, Charlie Hulme <i...@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote:
> > Same as your car insurance. Try making a claim, saying you knocked
> > someone over on the footpath!
>
> > They'll laugh you into court......
>
> Surely your insurance company would have to pay out to the
> unfortunate pedestrian?

Only if you can prove that you weren't on the pavement
deliberately.....if they can show that you were on the footpath under
your own free will, they will not pay!

Charles Ellson wrote:

> Which offences are you trying to evade liability for ?

I am astonished that some reasonable people believe that a
compulsory registration scheme for bicycles could be
made to work.

Even in Switzerland, where I've seen bikes carrying what
appears to be an annual taxation plate that carries the
Canton code and a year, and changes colour each year,
they have not attempted do enforce display of identifying
numbers.

I'm left speechless, really.

Charlie