Alan Howarth

Jon Senior said:

Matt B said:

I think it's you that has missed my point :-) If, as we seem to agree,
it isn't effective in stopping anti-social car use, then why not, not
only NOT introduce it for cycles, but ALSO abolish it for cars.

Your "new" understanding that you throw about so much appears to consist
of repeating the same gibberish at anyone who hasn't yet kill-filed you.

What do you mean by my '"new" understanding'?

Quoted message said:

So... in answer to your question (After being roundly chastised for asking
questions and never "saying" anything, have you decided not to use
question marks at all?):

?

Quoted message said:

ant-social car use poses a far greater threat to
other road users, and engenders a far greater disproportionate balance of
risk between driver and (potential) victim, than anti-social cycle use.

You don't say. So, the only difference is scale.

Quoted message said:

It
is for this reason that as a society (And a quick glance around the world
confirms that we are not alone) we choose to regulate motorised vehicle
usage, but (by and large) not un-motorised vehicle usage.

Yes, but for /no/ supportable logical reason. That /is/ the point. The
threat fro m cars /may/ be larger, but if I'm knocked down by an
untraceable cyclist who fails to stop that is of no comfort to me.

However, as we know, serious criminals who deliberately use cars to
commit crime do not use plates traceable to themselves, and, most decent
motorists would stop if they were involved in a collision, whether they
had plates or not. Now remind us of the benefit, which wouldn't apply
to plated cycles, of cars having registration plates.

Quoted message said:

If you have anything "new"[1] or incisive to add, feel free to do so...

Thank you for your gracious consent to me posting on usenet ;-)

--
Matt B

Not Responding said:

Jim Price said:

Burt said:

Just heard on R4 an alleged MP called Allan Howarth, demanding
registration for bicycles.

Is there anyone on this group who is both represented by said
idiot, and who would like to correct the him?

Nobody is represented by this idiot, as he's in the House of Lords.
He doesn't represent me in more than one way, by the sound of it.
Time for a spot more parliamentary reform methinks.

No thanks. An unelected HoL does a fantastic job of protecting the
nation from rule by Party line. Just look at the current
administration - the /only/ check to their enthusiasm has been in the
HoL.

UTAPLC

I fail to see why it was believed that it was fairer to remove people whose
great grandfathers do favours to the ruling party from government than those
who did the favours themselves. One might easily think that those whose
ancestors got themselves the title may be a bit more impartial.

There is need for *systematic* and *principled* reform of the upper chamber.
I fail to see how that can happen with the current and likely governments,
but at the very least, it will require a referendum.

--
Ambrose

Matt B said:

I think it's you that has missed my point :-) If, as we seem to
agree, it isn't effective in stopping anti-social car use, then why
not, not only NOT introduce it for cycles, but ALSO abolish it for
cars.

Because it will leave an ugly blank space on the bumper and boot of cars,
obviously.

Also, having had the police 'recover' my sister's bike after someone else's
of the same model was stolen, I think it's quite important that cars are
similarly identifiable, with there being an order of magnitude less variety
around and in most places substantially more parked around the place.

--
Ambrose

Matt B said:

What do you mean by my '"new" understanding'?

Your standard retort to anyone kill-filing you is to claim that they will
miss out on the debate and new ideas. 'Twas nothing more than a reference
to the aforementioned new ideas.

Quoted message said:

You don't say. So, the only difference is scale.

The scale in question being in the order of a ten-fold increase in weight
and a three-fold increase in speed (Both minimums of the scale) resulting
in a vast increase in the potential damage that can be caused. I can't
think of any simpler ways to explain this, so if you still don't
understand why there is a difference between 100kg of bike and rider @
15mph and 1000kg of car and driver @ 30mph then clearly no amount of
explanation will ever make it past the filters on your brain.

Quoted message said:

Yes, but for /no/ supportable logical reason. That /is/ the point. The
threat fro m cars /may/ be larger, but if I'm knocked down by an
untraceable cyclist who fails to stop that is of no comfort to me.

? The threat from cars is larger but that doesn't constitute a
"supportable logical reason"?

Quoted message said:

However, as we know, serious criminals who deliberately use cars to
commit crime do not use plates traceable to themselves, and, most decent
motorists would stop if they were involved in a collision, whether they
had plates or not. Now remind us of the benefit, which wouldn't apply
to plated cycles, of cars having registration plates.

Every driver who deliberately breaks the speed limit is both "serious" and
a "criminal". Thankfully many choose to do so without the use of false
number plates. We are not talking about hardened bank robbers. We are
talking about numpties who are blissfully unaware of what is happening
outside their tin box. There is a potential benefit to plating cycles, but
the bureaucracy this would entail for cycles (Not least the retro fitting
of plates to bikes which have no practicle fitting point) would be
excessive relative to the problem. The stats on speeding cars fined by the
camera partnerships is enough to demonstrate why plated cars are value for
money.

Quoted message said:

Thank you for your gracious consent to me posting on usenet ;-)

My pleasure... although I did note that as yet you have _not_ added
anything new. I eagerly await the groundbreaking revelations which will
surely soon be unveiled.

Jon

Not Responding said:

No thanks. An unelected HoL does a fantastic job of protecting the
nation from rule by Party line. Just look at the current administration
- the /only/ check to their enthusiasm has been in the HoL.

Are you now hoping the peerage is in the post?
;-)

John B

Tom Crispin said:

Burt said:

I think you're missing the point

Matt's point is to miss the point.

He has a point?

John B

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Matt B said:

I think it's you that has missed my point :-) If, as we seem to
agree, it isn't effective in stopping anti-social car use, then why
not, not only NOT introduce it for cycles, but ALSO abolish it for
cars.

Because it will leave an ugly blank space on the bumper and boot of
cars, obviously.

LOL.

Quoted message said:

Also, having had the police 'recover' my sister's bike after someone
else's of the same model was stolen, I think it's quite important that
cars are similarly identifiable, with there being an order of magnitude
less variety around and in most places substantially more parked around
the place.

I'd write my house name and postcode on mine with a uv pen, like on many
of my other possessions, inside the door apertures perhaps. I don't
need anything blazoned on the outside.

--
Matt B

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:05:06 +0100, John B <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think you're missing the point

Matt's point is to miss the point.

He has a point?

Indeed.

There is a point to a village idiot: they serve to remind us how not
to behave.

Care in the community is the name of the game. I suggest it's worth
keeping Matt here in urc as our Group Mascott.

Jon Senior said:

Matt B said:

You don't say. So, the only difference is scale [why cars need plates and bikes don't].

The scale in question being in the order of a ten-fold increase in weight
and a three-fold increase in speed (Both minimums of the scale) resulting
in a vast increase in the potential damage that can be caused.

So if I can think of something at least 10x the weight, and at least 3x
faster than a car, therefore even /more/ dangerous, I might have a case
for excepting cars from the ludicrous registration system they now
suffer. Shouldn't be too difficult then. I think you forgot the main
obstacle though :-)

Quoted message said:

I can't
think of any simpler ways to explain this, so if you still don't
understand why there is a difference between 100kg of bike and rider @
15mph and 1000kg of car and driver @ 30mph then clearly no amount of
explanation will ever make it past the filters on your brain.

I understand the physics you allude too, but I don't understand the
reason for mentioning it. The fact than one type of transport has more
kinetic energy than another is not to say therefore that the danger, or
potential to be used in criminal activity of the other vanishes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, but for /no/ supportable logical reason. That /is/ the point. The
threat fro m cars /may/ be larger, but if I'm knocked down by an
untraceable cyclist who fails to stop that is of no comfort to me.

? The threat from cars is larger but that doesn't constitute a
"supportable logical reason"?

No, as I've already outlined.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However, as we know, serious criminals who deliberately use cars to
commit crime do not use plates traceable to themselves, and, most decent
motorists would stop if they were involved in a collision, whether they
had plates or not. Now remind us of the benefit, which wouldn't apply
to plated cycles, of cars having registration plates.

Every driver who deliberately breaks the speed limit is both "serious" and
a "criminal".

As, indeed are those who do it accidentally too. As are the
shoplifters, those who cycle on the pavement, those who jump red lights
and so on.

Quoted message said:

Thankfully many choose to do so without the use of false
number plates.

And many other of those who break the law aren't required to /have/
number plates.

Quoted message said:

We are not talking about hardened bank robbers. We are
talking about numpties who are blissfully unaware of what is happening
outside their tin box.

Why are we /only/ interested in those who are breaking the law whilst
/also/ motoring?

Quoted message said:

There is a potential benefit to plating cycles, but
the bureaucracy this would entail for cycles (Not least the retro fitting
of plates to bikes which have no practicle fitting point) would be
excessive relative to the problem.

To catch even /one/ hit and run cyclist would surely make it worthwhile.
The cost would, or course be borne by the cyclist, with the
introduction of an annual registration fee.

Quoted message said:

The stats on speeding cars fined by the
camera partnerships is enough to demonstrate why plated cars are value for
money.

Did you know that fines are /also/ collected from criminals who
committed their crime other than in a motor vehicle? A number plate
doesn't differentiate between those who can be fined and those that can't.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thank you for your gracious consent to me posting on usenet ;-)

My pleasure... although I did note that as yet you have _not_ added
anything new. I eagerly await the groundbreaking revelations which will
surely soon be unveiled.

Here's one for you Jon: Aeroplanes /and/ trains are bigger and faster
than cars.

--
Matt B

Response to Tom Crispin:

Quoted message said:

There is a point to a village idiot: they serve to remind us how not
to behave.

Care in the community is the name of the game. I suggest it's worth
keeping Matt here in urc as our Group Mascott.

TBH, that *is* rather how I feel about him now: he's predictable enough
to pop up pretty much when you expect him (this thread being an obvious
case in point), and his collection of fallacies has by now gained a
comforting air of familiarity. :-)

--
Mark, UK
"All war must be just the killing of strangers against whom you feel no
personal animosity; strangers whom, in other circumstances, you would
help if you found them in trouble, and who would help you if you needed
it."

Matt B said:

So if I can think of something at least 10x the weight, and at least 3x
faster than a car, therefore even /more/ dangerous, I might have a case
for excepting cars from the ludicrous registration system they now
suffer. Shouldn't be too difficult then. I think you forgot the main
obstacle though :-)

Presuming it occupies / operates in the same and thus poses a threat in a
similar manner.

Quoted message said:

I understand the physics you allude too, but I don't understand the
reason for mentioning it. The fact than one type of transport has more
kinetic energy than another is not to say therefore that the danger, or
potential to be used in criminal activity of the other vanishes.

That alone is why I fear that your brain is not operating at full
capacity! ;-) We regulate motorised vehicles because of the danger they
pose to other road users (In which category I am including pedestrians)
and because of their capacity to cause criminal damage. Regulation of the
users allows a (theoretical) minimum ability level to be maintained
(Whether or not we achieve that is debatable). Regulation of the vehicles
allows for regular inspection for suitability for purpose. We do this for
motor vehicles and not for bikes because:

1) An unserviceable motor vehicle (by and large) poses a greater threat to
those outside it than to those inside it. This is increasingly true of
modern cars.
2) An unserviceable cycle (by and large) poses a greater threat to the
user than to those around it.

It is possible to construct hypothetical situations in which a bike with
no brakes could cause a pile-up, but the same arguments can be made in
respect of animals, potholes and alien invasions.

Quoted message said:

No, as I've already outlined.

That would be one of those logical disconnect thingies!

Quoted message said:

As, indeed are those who do it accidentally too. As are the
shoplifters, those who cycle on the pavement, those who jump red lights
and so on.

You mentioned serious criminals, not I. Not all motorists are shoplifters.
Not all motorists are pavement cyclists. A proportion of them are
red-light jumpers. And an overwhelming majority are speeders. Since the
latter behaviour is associated with motorised transport, we choose to
regulate such transport in a way that we do not regulate the individual
members of society.

Quoted message said:

And many other of those who break the law aren't required to /have/
number plates.

True. But there is an intersection of criminal activity and it's means
which provides an opportunity for regulation in a way that few others can.
It's (coincidentally) one where the means is (near universally) used to
break to law.

Quoted message said:

Why are we /only/ interested in those who are breaking the law whilst
/also/ motoring?

We're not. But this is a cycling newsgroup, and you keep dragging cars
into it. If you want a general discussion of uk law, the uk.legal
newsgroups are over there!

Quoted message said:

To catch even /one/ hit and run cyclist would surely make it worthwhile.

If the goal is to simply catch one, then plod have undoubtedly already
succeeded. Not only are "hit and run cyclists" rare (They tend to be
hit-and-fall-gracelessly-from-the-bike-then-stagger-to-their-feet-and-limp-off
cyclists!), but the damage they inflict is (largely) minimal. Thus we (The
aforementioned society) choose to concentrate our efforts on a genuine
problem (3500+ per year ring any bells?).

Quoted message said:

The cost would, or course be borne by the cyclist, with the
introduction of an annual registration fee.

But you are forgetting the cost of (potentially) having to design a new
mounting method for every bicycle, given the requirements of a sturdy,
safe (No sharp edges to increase injuries rates in a crash), legible
registration plate. The cost to society as a whole would be enormous.
Either due to the fabrication and design costs (thus income diverted
from more economy boosting goods) or due to the increased health care
costs to the NHS of a genuine increase in morbid obesity. Weighed against
your goal of "even one hit and run cyclist" it's understandable why we
concentrate on motor vehicles.

Quoted message said:

Did you know that fines are /also/ collected from criminals who
committed their crime other than in a motor vehicle? A number plate
doesn't differentiate between those who can be fined and those that
can't.

The fact that (by and large) pavement cyclists are slow beasts, easily
stopped by the police (I've seen them do it) yet do not provide a
significant enough source of income to warrant the creation of dedicated
enforcement agencies suggests that motorists are far more likely to behave
in a criminal manner and thus are a more worthy target.

Quoted message said:

Here's one for you Jon: Aeroplanes /and/ trains are bigger and faster
than cars.

And with a few exceptions are completely segregated from _road_ users,
since neither in fact _use the roads_. But for the record, we register and
regulate both types of vehicle AFAIK. Your point was where exactly?

Jon

Matt B said:

Jon Senior said:

Matt B said:

You don't say. So, the only difference is scale [why cars need
plates and bikes don't].

Quoted message said:

To catch even /one/ hit and run cyclist would surely make it
worthwhile. The cost would, or course be borne by the cyclist, with
the introduction of an annual registration fee.

Presumably set at the same, or a lower rate, than the lowest rate for cars.
As I cannot think of any reason why a cycle is more dangerous than a Smart
Diesel car, and the polution is lower.

Adminstration of your scheme going to cost, at a reasonable guess, £15-£20
per bicycle per year. I think there are something like 30 million of them in
the UK. So that's going to be 0.5bn pounds on income tax for your scheme
(having established that there isn't any reason to charge the cyclist, as
there is no reason to charge the owner of a Smart Diesel).
I've got a feeling that most of us can think of a better use for 0.5Bn to
prevent one hit and run accident, even the lunacy of "lets shut the railways
because of Hatfield accident" didn't get that expensive per injury saved.

Just to keep you busy, do some estimates of numbers of cyclists deterred
from cycling who will swap to cars for their journeys, and factor in the
increased number of car accidents as a consequence. (As happened when rail
passengers were forced into cars after Hatfield)

Quoted message said:

Here's one for you Jon: Aeroplanes /and/ trains are bigger and faster
than cars.

And are regulated by statutory safety bodies, requiring rigourous
inspection, documentation of all servicing, etc.. etc.. Those regulations
require the registration of trains and aircraft. All railway vehicles are
numbered (uniquely) and all planes carry registration marks. A bit like
cars really. And your point was ???

- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

Jon Senior said:

Matt B said:

So if I can think of something at least 10x the weight, and at least 3x
faster than a car, therefore even /more/ dangerous, I might have a case
for excepting cars from the ludicrous registration system they now
suffer. Shouldn't be too difficult then. I think you forgot the main
obstacle though :-)

Presuming it occupies / operates in the same and thus poses a threat in a
similar manner.

Not relevant. Or perhaps you are suggesting that only the
heaviest/fastest thing per 'manner' is eligible for this treatment.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I understand the physics you allude too, but I don't understand the
reason for mentioning it. The fact than one type of transport has more
kinetic energy than another is not to say therefore that the danger, or
potential to be used in criminal activity of the other vanishes.

That alone is why I fear that your brain is not operating at full
capacity! ;-)

Gooood answer.

Quoted message said:

We regulate motorised vehicles because of the danger they
pose to other road users (In which category I am including pedestrians)

I'm not talking about 'regulate', but the requirement for the display of
a number plate.

Quoted message said:

and because of their capacity to cause criminal damage.

We don't insist on huge external number plates on firearms.

Quoted message said:

Regulation of the
users allows a (theoretical) minimum ability level to be maintained
(Whether or not we achieve that is debatable).

Yes, but again, only for the specific activity of driving a motor vehicle.

Quoted message said:

Regulation of the vehicles
allows for regular inspection for suitability for purpose.

No connection. Landlords are required to have gas boilers serviced, but
they don't have to display huge number plates.

Quoted message said:

We do this for
motor vehicles and not for bikes because:

Irrelevant.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, as I've already outlined.

That would be one of those logical disconnect thingies!

You are fooling only yourself.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As, indeed are those who do it accidentally too. As are the
shoplifters, those who cycle on the pavement, those who jump red lights
and so on.

You mentioned serious criminals, not I. Not all motorists are shoplifters.
Not all motorists are pavement cyclists. A proportion of them are
red-light jumpers. And an overwhelming majority are speeders. Since the
latter behaviour is associated with motorised transport, we choose to
regulate such transport in a way that we do not regulate the individual
members of society.

So now you think number plates are only required to catch speeders?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And many other of those who break the law aren't required to /have/
number plates.

True. But there is an intersection of criminal activity and it's means
which provides an opportunity for regulation in a way that few others can.

Bikes could have plates. People could have plates :-)

Quoted message said:

It's (coincidentally) one where the means is (near universally) used to
break to law.

Eh?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why are we /only/ interested in those who are breaking the law whilst
/also/ motoring?

We're not. But this is a cycling newsgroup, and you keep dragging cars
into it. If you want a general discussion of uk law, the uk.legal
newsgroups are over there!

Someone was moaning about a suggestion to require plates on bikes, the
reasons against were all equally valid for cars. When I posed the
question "cars are plated why not bikes?", the only answers offered
either supported the plating bikes or excused the plating of cars.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To catch even /one/ hit and run cyclist would surely make it worthwhile.

If the goal is to simply catch one,

.... I never said that. If the use of plates caught one more then it
would be valid.

Quoted message said:

Not only are "hit and run cyclists" rare ...
but the damage they inflict is (largely) minimal. Thus we (The
aforementioned society) choose to concentrate our efforts on a genuine
problem (3500+ per year ring any bells?).

The number killed in household accidents? Although I suspect you were
suggesting that 3500 of the 3200, or so, killed on our roads were
victims of motorists. Let me remind you that many of those killed were
victims of their own actions, and that pedestrians and cyclists were
responsible for many of those casualties.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The cost would, or course be borne by the cyclist, with the
introduction of an annual registration fee.

But you are forgetting the cost of (potentially) having to design a new
mounting method for every bicycle, given the requirements of a sturdy,
safe (No sharp edges to increase injuries rates in a crash), legible
registration plate.

They already exist in other jurisdictions.

Quoted message said:

The cost to society as a whole would be enormous.
Either due to the fabrication and design costs (thus income diverted
from more economy boosting goods)

They already exist.

Quoted message said:

or due to the increased health care
costs to the NHS of a genuine increase in morbid obesity.

Are you suggesting that those privileged enough to able to cycle
wouldn't be prepared to pay a registration fee? How does that square
with the fact that practically every household, rich and poor, in the UK
have a TV and are prepared to license it?

Quoted message said:

Weighed against
your goal of "even one hit and run cyclist" it's understandable why we
concentrate on motor vehicles.

Not my goal - as explained above. You've offered no sustainable
argument to require plates on cars but not bikes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Did you know that fines are /also/ collected from criminals who
committed their crime other than in a motor vehicle? A number plate
doesn't differentiate between those who can be fined and those that
can't.

The fact that (by and large) pavement cyclists are slow beasts, easily
stopped by the police (I've seen them do it) yet do not provide a
significant enough source of income to warrant the creation of dedicated
enforcement agencies suggests that motorists are far more likely to behave
in a criminal manner and thus are a more worthy target.

Are you suggesting that law enforcement should be driven by economics
rather than by justice?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here's one for you Jon: Aeroplanes /and/ trains are bigger and faster
than cars.

And with a few exceptions are completely segregated from _road_ users,
since neither in fact _use the roads_. But for the record, we register and
regulate both types of vehicle AFAIK. Your point was where exactly?

You defended the plating of cars and ridiculed the plating of bikes
because cars are heavier and faster than bikes. I'm illustrating just
how illogical that argument is.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

The number killed in household accidents? Although I suspect you were
suggesting that 3500 of the 3200, or so, killed on our roads were
victims of motorists. Let me remind you that many of those killed were
victims of their own actions, and that pedestrians and cyclists were
responsible for many of those casualties.

I chuckled hard at a story written by one of my eight year old pupils
the other day. It started, "Mary was just twelve years old when she
went to work as a scullery maid in the huge house in the country. She
was an orphan her parents had been killed in a cart crash when she was
just three years old..."

How many deaths do you think happened on our roads as a result of cart
crashes or similar before the invention of the internal combustion
engine?

Nigel Cliffe said:

Matt B said:

Jon Senior said:

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 13:47:46 +0100, Matt B wrote:

> You don't say. So, the only difference is scale [why cars need
> plates and bikes don't].

Quoted message said:

To catch even /one/ hit and run cyclist would surely make it
worthwhile. The cost would, or course be borne by the cyclist, with
the introduction of an annual registration fee.

Presumably set at the same, or a lower rate, than the lowest rate for cars.
As I cannot think of any reason why a cycle is more dangerous than a Smart
Diesel car, and the polution is lower.

No. Based on the cost of running the system divided by the number of
cycles.

Quoted message said:

Adminstration of your scheme

I /don't/ want the scheme. I want /no/ registration for either bikes or
cars. *But* if road vehicles are deemed, by whoever, to require
registration, then we must suffer it.

Quoted message said:

going to cost, at a reasonable guess, £15-£20
per bicycle per year.

That's how much the fee should be then.

Quoted message said:

I think there are something like 30 million of them in
the UK. So that's going to be 0.5bn pounds on income tax for your scheme

No, it should be self financing.

Quoted message said:

(having established that there isn't any reason to charge the cyclist, as
there is no reason to charge the owner of a Smart Diesel).

Who established that?

Quoted message said:

I've got a feeling that most of us can think of a better use for 0.5Bn to
prevent one hit and run accident,

Why should cycling registration be subsidised from tax???

Quoted message said:

even the lunacy of "lets shut the railways
because of Hatfield accident" didn't get that expensive per injury saved.

Just to keep you busy, do some estimates of numbers of cyclists deterred
from cycling who will swap to cars for their journeys, and factor in the
increased number of car accidents as a consequence. (As happened when rail
passengers were forced into cars after Hatfield)

Either vehicle plating is essential or it isn't. If it is, then bikes
must be included. How is a criminal in a car more in need of a plate
than a criminal on a bike?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here's one for you Jon: Aeroplanes /and/ trains are bigger and faster
than cars.

And are regulated by statutory safety bodies, requiring rigourous
inspection, documentation of all servicing, etc.. etc..

Yes, but heavier and faster than cars, so by Jon's logic for exempting
bikes because cars have more kinetic energy, then cars should be
exempted because those other transport modes trump them.

Quoted message said:

Those regulations
require the registration of trains and aircraft. All railway vehicles are
numbered (uniquely) and all planes carry registration marks. A bit like
cars really.

So?

Quoted message said:

And your point was ???

Already explained above :-)

--
Matt B

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Someone was moaning about a suggestion to require plates on bikes, the
reasons against were all equally valid for cars. When I posed the
question "cars are plated why not bikes?", the only answers offered either
supported the plating bikes or excused the plating of cars.

No.

Troll.

Killfile.

Matt B said:

Not relevant. Or perhaps you are suggesting that only the
heaviest/fastest thing per 'manner' is eligible for this treatment.

Let's see: Plane: Interaction with pedestrians: ~0
Train: Interaction with pedestrians: ~0

Could this be in some way related to the fact that neither vehicle
operates on the public highway?

Quoted message said:

Gooood answer.

Thank you. Perhaps you could do me the courtesy of providing one in
return. ;-)

Quoted message said:

I'm not talking about 'regulate', but the requirement for the display of
a number plate.

Which is a part and parcel of the regulation.

Quoted message said:

We don't insist on huge external number plates on firearms.

And we don't allow just anyone to own a firearm. I will happily support
your idea of applying the same restrictions on firearm ownership to cars.

Quoted message said:

Yes, but again, only for the specific activity of driving a motor
vehicle.

Not solely, but ignoring that, yes... because they pose a disproportionate
danger.

Quoted message said:

No connection. Landlords are required to have gas boilers serviced, but
they don't have to display huge number plates.

And buildings aren't in the habit of moving around the country at the whim
of the occupants.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We do this for
motor vehicles and not for bikes because:

In my opinion and based on no discernible logic; Irrelevant.

I've corrected your mistake for you.

Quoted message said:

So now you think number plates are only required to catch speeders?

No. But it does provide a nice example doesn't it. After all, since a
majority of drivers admit to routinely breaking the law it seems sensible
to watch them more closely.

Quoted message said:

Bikes could have plates. People could have plates :-)

They could. They could also carry a large lead weight but this is not
relevant (Although plated-peds is an amusing idea). The problem still
remains in fitting plates in a safe manner to the range of bicycles that
are used in Britain. In order to be demonstrably safe, they would have to,
at a minimum protude no further than the existing structure of the bike.
If you can reconcile that with visibility at an appropriate distance and
from at least two angles, do feel free to explain how.

Quoted message said:

Eh?

Still struggling? See above!

Quoted message said:

Someone was moaning about a suggestion to require plates on bikes, the
reasons against were all equally valid for cars. When I posed the
question "cars are plated why not bikes?", the only answers offered
either supported the plating bikes or excused the plating of cars.

In your opinion. But since you are either not reading the explanations or
fail to understand them that opinion counts for not a lot.

Quoted message said:

... I never said that. If the use of plates caught one more then it
would be valid.

Then by the same logic I propose the banning of all cars from the public
highway since this will save at least one life. Presumably you will
support this, after all, you suggested it!

Quoted message said:

The number killed in household accidents? Although I suspect you were
suggesting that 3500 of the 3200, or so, killed on our roads were
victims of motorists. Let me remind you that many of those killed were
victims of their own actions, and that pedestrians and cyclists were
responsible for many of those casualties.

Ah, victim blaming. You would have the stats to hand to support the image
of suicidal non-motorised road users throwing themselves at the cars?

Quoted message said:

They already exist in other jurisdictions.

So you should have no trouble explaining the mechanisms for attachment and
the assurance of safety?

Quoted message said:

They already exist.

And yet I don't see the products in bike shops (Or anywhere for that
matter!).

Quoted message said:

Are you suggesting that those privileged enough to able to cycle
wouldn't be prepared to pay a registration fee? How does that square
with the fact that practically every household, rich and poor, in the UK
have a TV and are prepared to license it?

Er... That the British are (on average) lazy enough to pay out the money
for the TV, but not a bike. I know what a great number of my peers would
do!

Quoted message said:

Not my goal - as explained above. You've offered no sustainable
argument to require plates on cars but not bikes.

Except that I have. And others have. And we've all done it before. But
sadly no amount of explaining has made it past your "cars can do no wrong
- motorists are unfairly penalised" filters.

Quoted message said:

Are you suggesting that law enforcement should be driven by economics
rather than by justice?

I'm suggesting that it is! Whether or not it should be is an entirely
different argument, but the reality is that law enforcement has a finite
budget. Given that limitation, it makes sense to spend money where it will
have the greatest benefit. Interestingly, year on year, this has not
involved a bicycle licensing requirement.

Quoted message said:

You defended the plating of cars and ridiculed the plating of bikes
because cars are heavier and faster than bikes. I'm illustrating just
how illogical that argument is.

By attacking a strawman? That illustrates nothing what-so-ever. I've
patiently explained why it is that we choose to licence cars and not
bikes. I presume that you still don't see any difference between the two.
This appears to say more about your pyschology than the subject in hand.

Jon

Jon Senior wrote:

[Loads of stuff]

You know, he's still going to write back with a load more idiot questions..

Jon Senior said:

Train: Interaction with pedestrians: ~0

Akshully 246 dead for 2003/4

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 07:33:37 GMT, Mark Thompson

pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com said:

Jon Senior wrote:

[Loads of stuff]

You know, he's still going to write back with a load more idiot questions..

"Care in the Community". Perhaps we should draw up a duty roster to
keep Matt entertained. It's your turn next. :-P