New proposal for cyclists to wear helmets

NEW proposals to force all cyclists to wear helmets are to be brought forward following two serious accidents on Beaumont Hill in the last two months.

The wearing of helmets could become law
The wearing of helmets could become law

NEW proposals to force all cyclists to wear helmets are to be brought forward following two serious accidents on Beaumont Hill in the last two months.

Three years ago the States adopted plans to make helmets compulsory for children but threw out proposals to apply the law to adults.

The legislation is still yet to come into force.

Full story in Friday's JEP.

Comments for: "New proposal for cyclists to wear helmets"

fewer will cycle including me

if you think you're safe you will become careless. it is a proven fact that offroad motorcycle riders that suddenly decide to buy all the safety gear immediately have an accident that they didn't before. psychologically feeling safe makes you careless. i see many families cycling at weekends with all the safety gear DOING RIDICULOUSLY STUPID THINGS on our roads.

Chris

Indeed, when this law was implemented in Australia, the number of people cycling went down significantly!

helmets, gloves and wet suits FOR SURFERS

why don't they make swimmers wear anti drowning scuba gear? or surfers that can be hit by a surf board, wear a helmet? or joggers that can run into a lampost wear a gum shield and full face helmet? maybe horse riders should have a mattresse attached to them FRONT & BACK in case they fall off. maybe pedestrians should have to wear bubble wrap suits incase they trip over.

Chris

This article says it all unfortunately:

http://ipa.org.au/publications/2019/australia%27s-helmet-law-disaster

AVERAGE speed of cyclists lower than motorcycles

the average speed of a motorcycle is much higher than a cyclist. therefore the risk is much lower for a cyclist. cyclists tire and cannot go up hills as fast or as long. comparing the two is ridiculous as motorbikes go as quick as they desire, cyclists have gradients and human fatigue that keep their average speed LOW.

Simple Sid

How do you work that out Cyclists are more of a danger as they are slower and get in the way, they are always obstructing other vehicles.

Cyclist and motorist

Confronted this morning by cyclist riding the wrong way up a one way street and heading straight towards me- an all too common occurrence now, unfortunately.

I wasn't going fast in the car so the cycling idiot did not meet with what could so easily have been a very nasty accident.

Compulsory helmets penalise the majority of cyclists, me included, who behave reasonably and observe the road traffic laws. Surely it would be better to look at policing and bring to book an increasing minority of aggressive and dangerous cyclists?

monsieur HULOT

mon velo?...

gino risoli

mind your own business is the first thought that comes to mind.

I Pasdenomi

Don't make it the business of the taxpayer funded emergency and health services to patch you up then.

kermit

Over time, cyclists should cost less to the tax payer than all the fatties relying on their cars.

And if a cyclist past away, there is no money to give away for retirement.

I don't think it is a question of money but more of freedom, which is becoming rarer in Jersey.

I Pasdenom

The 'fattie' in his car has passed a test and is licensed to drive, so if his standard of driving is sub-standard it can be revoked; his 'freedom' is limited.

When was the last time we heard of a cyclist being prosecuted for sub-standard or dangerous cycling?

The police have no interest in doing anything about cycling standards, as evidenced this morning by the officer riding his bike along the pavement in Halkett Place.

Helmet laws are probably NOT the answer, but allowing cyclist the freedom to be dangerous isn't either.

da do ron

Hi-Viz slips and lights at night- spot fines for pavement cycling and jumping red traffic lights could help

Tony B

I agree a Hi- Vi jacket is essential. But why do many cyclists put on a Hi- Vi , then put a large dark backpack on?

Phil

Come to that, how many cyclists do you see with lights on at night?

Spencer

Not many. That particular offence is another of the ones that goes with running red lights, failing to heed "no entry" signs and riding on pavements.

Some of the rare ones who do have lights have ones that are so bright that they dazzle other road users. Selfish.

the thin wallet

i used to ride motorbikes and still do sometimes .

there was a uproar when the helmet law came in .

fact .

you can fall just as far on a bicycle as you can on motor cycle .

with todays overpopulated traffic . and poor driving it would be a good idea .

i was on my pushbike crossing the road with it on foot .

and some myopic fool in car, cut the corner and broke the back of my bike .

however, the strength of a cycle helmet against a pavement , i am unsure about .

compared to a good fibreglass lid.

egalitarian

Virtually no cyclists wear a helmet in Amsterdam and there's thousands of them there.

Tony B

Yes but in Holland and Belgium if a cycilist causes problems or an acident, they are made to account for it.

Dave

The whole attitude of cyclists is different over there, Tony- they learn from an early age to take responsibility for their actions.

The wholesale breach of the raod traffic laws by cyclists that we see over here would not be tolerated there and "on the spot" fines would be issued. Perhaps we should be looking at such an idea here.

TheMoaningOldBugger

Now wait a minute,,,,Accidents don't just happen, they are caused by somebody,,,,,,there have been 2 major accidents over the last few months but before every Tom Dick and Harry jump on the band wagon calling for hats lets see who was at fault in both cases and if it was the drivers fault or the cyclists don't tar everybody with the same brush,,,,,I cut my hand open with a saw at home which needed 19 stitches and I an sure that I am not alone but because there were 2 cases does this mean we ban saws at home, NO IT DOES NOT,,,, every body has a choice, it's up to the individual to decide,,,,just KEEP YOUR NOSES OUT,,,!!

tmore

Your argument makes no sense.

Irrespective of who was at fault, it is the cyclist that is going to be injured. The law would be to protect cyclists, not punish them.

Are you saying that if it was the driver's fault, we shouldn't enforce helmet wearing because in some way the injuries to the cyclist are different?

Re the saw, they aren't suggesting banning the bike (ie the saw in your comparison) but enforcing safety precautions.

I Pasdenom

The hill is a 40mph zone(and that's perfectly safe in a car), but as I drove down it at a fairly steady 30mph-ish, earlier today I had an idiot cyclist just off my bumper all the way to the junction at the bottom where he overtook on the wrong side at a junction while, albeit slow-moving, traffic was indicating they were to turn left.

Once again the knee-jerk reaction is to force this idiot to wear a helmet, rather than deal with the actual issue of his poor road-skill and prevent the inevitable accident.

If this law is passed I very much hope it's fully enforced for both those not wearing a helmet, and those wearing one badly (I've seen more than one adult riding with a helmet on back to front cause they're too stupid to realise it would seem!)

Berta

One cyclist nearly hit me at the traffic lights at the bottom of St Saviour's Hill- he shot through the red light at Highlands Lane and I just missed him- the problem with helmets is that they will just make them feel even more invincible and above the law- it's policing that's required.

There will be more serious accidents if they don't clamp down- possibly children on pavements where cyclists always ride now against the law.

Chris

Oh yes please! More Nanny State, more rules and regulations, less personal freedom, definitely the way forward...sigh!!

bt

how fast do the bikes travel at down the hill ,20 30 mph on two wheels can it stop in time, when you come to the blind bend and a car has stopped round the other side,i have sat behind a bike and he had to swerve across the road as the traffic had stopped ,going to fast.

It's

Too fast, not "to fast".

Every day's a school day.

Sam

Helmets are a must, but more needs to be done to better inform motorists of their responsibilities:

When overtaking cyclists you should always allow plenty of room, move right over into the next lane when overtaking.

Other people have mentioned the speeding through green lanes and other low speed areas such as St. Brelade's Bay, why use a green lane if you are in hurry with your car, 15mph is a maximum speed, not a requirement that you travel at it or double the limit. More needs to be done to combat speeding drivers, the offence needs a more serious consequence, that it become unattractive, loss of licence for minimum of 1 month and have to retake a test.

Police need to enforce the limits, why on earth does the radio advertise where checks take place, this is a licence to exceed the limit without concern of getting caught on unchecked roads that day.

Please will the authorities act?

Mas

.........and much needs to be done to ensure that cyclists don't run red lights, cycle on pavements and ride up no-entry roads.

As you say, more needs to be done to better inform cyclists of their responsibilities. Police need to enforce these obligations.

Please will the authorities act?

yesrej evol i

correct in every sentence..

Phyllis Stein

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin

tmore

You're right, maybe we should cancel the requirement that all drivers wear seatbelts and let people talk on their phones while driving.

Doesn't matter if there are more injuries and deaths, at least we'll have our libterty

Idiot detector

tmore>

And maybe we should cover ourselves in bubble wrap and force children to wear knee pads when walking in the play ground.!! -stupid reasoning !!!!

Slawek

You've mixed two things - own safety and others safety.

When it comes to the seatbelts - yes the law should be scrapped because it is one's personal decision not having any effect on safety of others. It does affect personal liberty - in exchange for ?

Going this way - why don't we ban swimming in the sea for example - after all someone may drown. Certainly there will be less deaths once we ban swimming - very the same reason why seatbelts laws were introduced and helmets laws are considered.

Talking on the phone while driving is another matter - it is about protecting other road users from driver's lack of focus.

pauper

Mr Green and TTS should question whether the road surface where the accident took place was up to standard? And was this cyclist actually speeding as he approached the bend? And have the authorities ever actually questioned which bikes are prone to design faults, ie, gears slipping, brakes not as effective at certain speeds?

I wish the cyclist a speedy recovery, but every accident on any road needs to be properly investigated before some one shouts, "bring compulsory helmet wearing".

the thin wallet

i agree that the road is poor if you are on a push bike , sunken pot holes , general ruts and thats only in town.

makes you wobble when you hit one, well it does me .

CYCLST

i used to have lots of near misses, thinking i had right of way. now i wear RED and expect everybody to be an idiot and i've not had a near miss for over a year.- I'VE LEARNT, MANY HAVEN'T

Peter

I'm a cyclist and totally disagree with being forced to wear a helmet.

There are lots of cyclists out there that don't help themselves such as riding on pavements and cycling the wrong way up one way streets or riding to fast especially around blind corners.

Cycling sensibly will certainly help but agree that accidents will still happen but please let's us make our own minds up.

As others have said. Nanny state !

Sensible

Out of interest, do you wear a helmet?

Simple Sid

Thought it would be common sense to wear a helmet, why does it always take an accident for the authorities to act?

Simple Sid

Cyclists run red lights every day

New bicycle user

As a car user, and now a bicycle user too, I can see both sides of the coin.

Personally, I feel that both parties are neither well monitored for safety. In a car or on a bike I have seen many incident's, on both sides, that could well have had a nasty and possibly deadly consequence.

None of those potential outcome's would have been in any way made avoidable by the addition of a "compulsory" measure that would have prevented serious injury.

Point being is that individuals need to develop/re-develop the ability to monitor their own behaviour in order to help themselves, and more importantly, other people from suffering through their own selfish action.

But, since that won't happen and people will continue to believe that their need's are more important than anyone else, you can impose any sanction's, voluntary or enforced rules you like. Until those rules can be enforced, it won't make any difference at all.

artful

Why all the apostrophes in your plurals? The apostrophe is used to signify possession.

the wanted

Why the lack of a life? Continually critiquing the grammar of others signifies a sad existence.

R. Williams

Continually critisizing persons who prefer to see English written correctly signifies an even sadder existence where standards do not matter.

Maybe the writer does not understand the correct way to form those plurals and is grateful for the correction. Some people want to improve, others don't care. Which category do you come into?

Sensible

I hate it when people use "Don't" rather than " Do not"...as in "Don't care" rather than "Do not care". Its just lazy and really grinds my gears.

Yours, a fellow pedant.

Hilary

There is a third category which you don't mention in your insightful post, RW.

Some people want to improve, some don't care, while others like to pass judgment on the comment of others while contributing nothing of any value.

The latter is the third option and is, perhaps, the "saddest" of them all. The comment to which we both respond seems to fall within that description.

I very much doubt that any reply will be forthcoming.

yesrej evol i

if cyclists were to use helmets compulsory, then the accidents would increase because the drivers being as ignorant towards cyclists/ as they are, would drive faster around cyclists thinking they were invincible, the only way to stop accidents involving cars is to.. STOP warning drivers on the local radio were the speed traps are operating on that particular day..introduce a point system like the uk 9 points and your banned for 12 mths...then and only then would RTA's be reduced...the local folk who pass their test in jersey would last 2 minutes on uk motorways..just who passes these lunatic drivers...

Penny

I would take a countervailing view and, while agreeing with you that helmets will perhaps not help, would suggest that the reason for this is that they would merely encourage a sizeable minority of cyclists to carry on breaking the laws as they already do. It is the cyclists who would perceive themselves as invincible, both in terms of being above the law and once fitted with a helmet, in the bodily sense as well.

A more sensible approach would be to prosecute the very many cyclists who run red lights, ride on pavements and who go against the one way system. It would not take very long for a police observer to detect and report a considerable number of offenders at any set of traffic lights in town.

Another good idea would be the reintroduction of cycle registration plates and possibly some sort of raod insurance for the cyclist, perhaps as an extension to an existing motor policy.

Eco Warrior

#Penny, I totally agree with you. Cycle registration plates and some sort of road insurance for the cyclist would certainly help. Also, maybe a less aggressive way of cycling! A less aggressive way of driving cars! It is easy for us to deliberate from the comfort of our laptops but less easy when lying strapped up in a hospital bed which could have been avoided by forethought on both sides.

Concerned

Given the sheer number of cyclists who now break the road traffic laws, it can only be a matter of time before someone is seriously injured, perhaps a child walking on a pavement.

The cliff paths are often blighted by idiots speeding on bikes, Mourier Valley is one such place- those who feel able to do so may block the path of the cyclist and force them to slow down. There should be better barriers placed on the coastal paths before someone is seriously hurt by one of these uninsured, unregistered cyclists.

Dave

Has anyone stated whether either cyclist was wearing a helmet?

Personally I wear a helmet every time I ride but I strongly object to people jumping on the soapbox when they sniff an opportunity regardless of facts.

One simple rule applies to cars and bikes alike. You must always be prepared to stop in the road that is visible from the seat/saddle. If you can't stop or evade when the unexpected comes the other way, it's going to hurt.

theMoaningOldBugger

one of the problems facing Joe Public as drivers is that you cannot report a cyclist as they have no registration that identify them. Make it compulsory that all bike must carry a registration plate just like a car. then start prosecuting them when they break the law. this is guaranteed to ensure that cyclists start to rider better

sam

Goodness,Where will this stop rollerblades,skateboarders,runners,are afew to mention.It is called choice which is slowly being taken away from us. Mr Green you are not my keeper I know you mean well, though please leave our freedom of choice to us

Eco Warrior

Freedom of choice, but at what cost?

Warren J

Usual knee jerk reaction here, most of it based in emotion, rather than facts.

Cyclist falls of bike at the bottom of Beaumont Hill and CTV report it as a 'collision' (with what ?) and police close the road for 2 hours. People then rant on about speeding drivers (again)

Simple facts

Majority of islanders travel around in private cars safely

Two wheeled transport is inherently dangerous - no seat belts / protective cage / etc etc

A few nutters gun it along the avenue (apparently)

Majority of cyclists disobey traffic lights / lighting requirements / laws in general

Majority of premature deaths in this island are caused by drug abuse and suicide

But oh, lets target the motorist - again and again - if it saves one life, etc etc

To save one life per year in Jersey, ban all two wheeled transport !

Simple Sid

Cyclists need to be policed, this morning Saturday I only went out for half an hour and 2 cyclists went through the red lights at Robin Hood and 3 cyclist were riding 3 a breast holding all the traffic up on St Saviours Hill.

arthur crown

It should be a personal choice it would result in lots of people giving up their bikes and more cars on the road.There are still idiots driving around without seat belts and on mobile phones they cant even in force that what next bumpers on skate boarders .

Simple Sid

Motorists and Motorcyclists have no choice.

The Baron

compulsory helmets is a great idea.forget the who's done what and why-there are plenty of car drivers that the police could have a word with as well.maybe everyone could just think for a second that their stupid actions (wether on bike ,in car,etc) could deprive someone of a much loved partner,child,etc. motorcyclists learned to live with them-we can as well.i wear one and it has saved my life twice.i also have friends who are still here because of them as well.wether any of our accidents were self inflicted or caused by cars is not the question here-common sense is !

kermit

I am sorry, but if I choose to go on the road I ll decide to take the helmet with me. As I avoid the road as much as possible and I rarely need it. More cycle tracks would help in my view.

I am not sure if the tourists will appreciate to be forced to wear an helmet. Specially if it is a rental one.

Baz Du Mont

More cycle tracks like the one at Gorey which no-one uses because the grit isn't good to ride on? I still get stuck behind cyclists along there, and by the airport, because cyclists who care about their cycles stick to the good clean tarmac!

Martin

Of course a helmet helps to protect the head in the event of an accident. But so much better to avoid the accident in the first place. What lessons can be learnt from the Beaumont Hill accidents? Are there published investigations, similar though perhaps smaller than air accident investigations?

Publishing and learning from the causes of these accidents is the best way to lower their frequency.

did anyone here go to school?

Wow, if the general standard of driving or cycling in Jersey is anything like the standard of English on here, no wonder we have problems.

Erika

You should have used at least one capital letter in your subject heading.

You may want to bear that in mind next time you feel the urge to be condescending towards others in regards to matters of grammar.

pauper

The subject people are concerned about, is the compulsory wearing of cycle helmets. If you want to come across as pedantic k..b? Then go and join that other pompous person who writes for J.E.P under the clock page.!

puffin

'bugger' I thought the other day as a lycra-clad helmetted cyclist flew in front of me at the roundabout at the top of Beaumont Hill the other day, thinking I would be stuck behind at 20 all the way down the hill!

But no, I couldn't even keep up with him and he was definitely going over 40 all the way down, including on the blind bends.

From my observations the most dangerous cyclists are already wearing helmets, and they also have a protective lycra body coating that makes them inpervious to damage! The average person without a helmet having a ride on a Sunday afternoon a. is going quite slowly b. has less confidence so is more wary of what is going on around them and c. doesn't think they own the road they ride on.

Concerned

Just popped into town and saw, on two separate occasions, cyclists running red lights, one while chatting on a mobile. The motorist waiting at the lights could not believe what he was seeing, if his expression was anything to go by.

The other cyclist was in front of me on Stopford Road when the lights turned red and hesitated when I blew my horn, but then proceeded against the law anyway. I had an idea that he was going to go staright through because I had just witnessed him overtaking another car on the inside of a filter in turn in the most dangerous and selfish way.

I would have reported this series of road traffic offences if the cyclist had had a registration plate and I would have been delighted to go to court and to give evidence.

On the way in, I saw two others cycling on the pavement against the one-way system by Robin Hood.

I don't know what is happening in St Helier, but there seems to be a complete breakdown in law enforcement when it comes to cyclists.

This need sorting before there is a dreadful accident- the errant cyclist will no doubt claim that it is not his or her fault but someone, probably a pedestrian on a pavement or crossing while the lights are red, is going to be seriously injured.

Let's not hope that we have to get to that stage before the St Helier police decide to take notice.

Cycle registration may be the only answer if the rot is allowed to set in for much longer.

Bill

"I would have reported this series of road traffic offences if the cyclist had had a registration plate"

Really? I dont think so.

How many car drivers with plates do you report for parking on yellow lines, speeding, driving down one way streets, driving without headlights and so on.

None.

So why claim plates on bikes change anything?

Concerned

Well, clearly, Bill, you know me better than I know myself.

I would indeed have reported this series of road traffic offences had the cyclists had registration plates.

I suggest, politely, that you confine your comments to matters which are within your own knowledge.

Thank you.

Bill

Concerned, you would not report road traffic offenses. This is quite obvious, and I don't need to know you to know this.

You don't do it now, despite seeing them happen all the time, so you will not do it in the future.

What will change to suddenly make you report every road traffic offense you witness?

Or are you suggesting you would discriminate against one particular type of offender, whilst ignoring another who commits exactly the same crime? What else? You would report black people but not white? you would report women but not men?

I suggest you actually look at yourself and learn what kind of person you are.

Bill report

"Bill" has no proper argument so he to resort to telling someone who he doesn't know what that other person might or might not do in a given situation.

Then we have the pompous, emotive and self-righteous drivel regarding racial equality-such a feeble and ridiculous comparison is laughable and really very silly.

I don't know Bill but, in much the same way as he likes to speculate as to the thoughts of others, I am sure that he will realise, in time if not already, that the argumentative words which he writes are both unhelpful and puerile.

The judgmental nonsense perhaps sums up best of all why we need to ensure that the law is obeyed by the cyclists as well as by everyone else. As a self-righteous person, I am again sure that even he would agree with that, provided that his iq is of a sufficient level to allow such a thing. :)

Bill

I agree that the law should be obeyed by everyone.

I disagree with foolish comments on how it would be monitored.

I disagree that someone would claim to suddenly start reporting offenses witnessed if they had license plates. This clearly does not happen right now, with offenses committed by people *with* plates.

So it is foolish to claim it would suddenly happen if plates were introduced to the remainder without them.

Concerned

Not at all. A cyclist is obliged to obey the road traffic laws. At the present time, many do not. The main reason for this is they cannot be identified.

It follows that it would be foolish to assert that the re-introduction of plates would not give rise to a marked decline in the widespread offending which we presently see.

I witnessed a series of serious road traffic offences earlier this week being committed by cyclists. If those cyclists had been capable of being identified, then I would have had no hesitation in reporting them. It is foolish for someone who is not in possession of the facts to contend otherwise!

Jane

Bill, I don't think that you do agree that the law should be obeyed by everyone. I don't need to know you to know that.

I disagree with foolish comments on how it would be monitored.

I disagree that you would claim to suddenly start being concerned about offences committed by cyclists.

So it is foolish to claim it would suddenly happen when you raise silly arguments and presume to speak for others who post commentary on this subject.

Bill

Yes, Concerned, any road user is obliged to obey the road traffic laws.

At the present time most do not. The main reason is because they stand little chance of being punished. It has nothing to do with being identified; otherwise 60% of motorists who can easily be identified with their plates would not speed on the avenue.

So, if plates do not stop the vast majority of motorists from breaking road traffic laws, why would it stop a minority of road users that don’t have plates? In fact, it stands to logical reasoning that plates would have zero affect on the volume of cyclists breaking laws as it has zero affect on the volume of motorists doing the same.

I witness a series of road traffic offences every day by motorists, using mobile phones, dangerous parking, driving with no lights, driving through red lights and yes, even driving down a one way road the wrong way once this week. I also see the occasional cyclist doing the same, but they are vastly outnumbered by the motorists.

Are you blind to these offenses caused by motorists? They happen everywhere, and yet you do not report them, you seem not to even see them. Why do you ignore them and only see cyclists?

With the prevalence of mobile phones with video cameras, cyclists do not require plates for you to report them, but, if you had any morals at all, you should also report every motorist you see breaking the law too. But apparently, you cannot see them at all.

Concerned

Bill thank you; I agree with your argument that a cyclist is obliged to obey the road traffic laws. At the present time, many do not. The main reason for this is they cannot be identified.

It follows that it would be foolish to assert that the re-introduction of plates would not give rise to a marked decline in the widespread offending which we presently see.

Perhaps you suffer from a form of selective blindness; one can only speculate.

I witnessed a series of serious road traffic offences earlier this week being committed by cyclists. If those cyclists had been capable of being identified, then I would have had no hesitation in reporting them.

It is foolish for someone who is not in possession of the facts to contend otherwise.

Penny

If I could just pick you up on one or two points, Bill?

In your slightly muddled and somewhat aggressive posts you express concern at the fact that you think that some offences are noticed while others are not. I cannot comment on how your mind works but it seem as though you have a difficulty with seeing the law enforced in a proper way.

What I see everyday are bikes riding the wrong way though town and committing various other moving traffic offences. This is very dangerous.

A car driving the wrong way up Gloucester Street or down the precinct would be reported very quickly, but a bike cannot be reported for these frequent occurrences at the moment because bikes have no plates. This is, as you state, something of a problem and registration plates would seem to be the way forward.

You then go on to mention cars speeding on the avenue and suggest that this somehow licences the very dangerous cycling which is now common. Again, I sympathise, although a breach of the speeding law by one type of road user cannot legalise the wholesale abuse by another which we agree occurs.

In legal and practical terms, an onlooker cannot secure a conviction against a speeding motorist because some form of expert or electronic corroboration is required under the road traffic law.

On the other hand, a cyclist riding the one way though town or running a red light is something which could be acted upon. A single witness, perhaps supported by closed circuit footage, would be enough to secure a conviction.

"Concerned" would report such offences, soo too would many others, myself included. At the moment, cyclists tend to ignore the law because they know that they cannot be identified.

I hope that the above helps with your difficulty.

John

I refer to Bill's comment where he suggests that we report cyclists who break the law by filming them on mobile phones.

A good idea in principle, Bill, but unfortunately there is still the problem of identification. The police will not know who the cyclist is and the cyclist, if he is like many, will deny any wrongdoing. The answer might be to detain the person concerned at the time of the offence, but this could cause further problems.

So, we return to what would appear to be the only answer- registration plates on cycles. In that way, your idea to film the many cyclists who break the law would be effective, although a fairly high filming capacity may well be required!

Tobias

Agree with Penny and Concerned, registration plates for bicycles are, unfortunately, rapidly becoming a necessity. There is one idiot in particular who nearly rode straight into my little daughter as I pushed her in the buggy onto the pavement on Don Road. Every morning I see the same bald-headed tattooed idiot riding on the pavement the wrong way up the no-entry, once a police van drove right past him and they didn't even stop, guess they must have been on their way to something far more important.

I once took a video of the aforementioned idiot and took it to police HQ but the usual, "oh we can't possibly identify him so we won't even look at the video" which of course translates as, "we don't want any crime reports to mess with our lovely stats".

Every day I see plenty of cyclists going round blind corners on the pavement, jumping through red lights, undertaking, riding up no-entries etc... it's up to them if they want to risk their own necks but when they put other people at risk - with very little chance of them being identified - then it's definitely time to be looking at registration.

Concerned

Thank you, Tobias. I anticipate that Bill will shortly suggest that, by reporting the cyclist, you somehow displayed a form of discrimination.

He would wonder why you were concerned at the kinetic energy presented by 200lbs of person and bike hurtling towards an infant in a pushchair on the pavement. We must be tolerant, you know.

No doubt he will post a reply in due course explaining why such a thing is acceptable. I await that reply with great interest.

Bill

Tobias, Unfortunately, the same would happen to you if you took video of a car, with a licence plate, driving through a red light, nearly hitting children crossing the avenue to the funfair (as happened in front of me today) to the police. They would do nothing.

Registration plates do not stop motorists from breaking the law, And they have licence plates, So why believe cyclists break the law because they do not have plates?

One would have to consider why motorists break the law first, then see why cyclists do it. Identification is not the issue, clearly.

Of course, Concerned, who believes that no motorist ever breaks the law because they can be identified (Despite the recent article about 60% of people speeding on the avenue alone) would never have seen a mechanically powered half ton of metal hurtling towards children ignorant of a red light as an issue. Naturally, having a plate, that car would not have done such a thing, or if they did, it would never have happened in Concerned field of view, because, clearly, they had plates and could be identified.

Tobias

Bill, unfortunately you are quite correct, the police would do nothing even with a video showing registration plates. I speak from experience here, as two little brats with mopeds on my estate regularly used to race each other at full speed past the children playing outside.

I emphasise that they "used" to race along my estate - police would not do anything even when shown video footage of them racing at 45+mph in a 20 zone, which clearly showed their number plates. Eventually, one of the parents - obviously worried about their children and frustrated that the police would not do anything - put superglue into the brats' ignition systems one dark night. Voila, shame the police couldn't be bothered to sort it out but at least the children are safe once again. (Disclaimer: I do not know who did this, nor did I see the apparent incident occur).

Concerned

Thanks Bill, you have confirmed my prediction.

If you do not believe that motorists are ever prosecuted then it would be prudent for you to read the magistrate's court report in the JEP before you make further unwise comment.

Your argument now seems to be perfectly clear. You believe that motorists break the law and that this somehow excuses the widespread beaches of the road traffic law which we see committed by cyclists every day. That is your opinion. It is not a mature opinion, but it nonetheless represents your stated position.

Others of higher intellect, not that such a thing is difficult, will differ, as we see. Those with small children using pavements will be aware of the danger, but this is not a situation which you recognise.

Others will say that the reason why cyclists continue to break the law of a wholesale basis is because they know that they cannot be idenfied. Some kind of registration scheme would seem to be the only answer.

Naturally, you will continue to have a difficulty with this and you will continue to entertain us with you peculiar view of the road traffic laws. Once again, I look forward to your next, no doubt well considered response.

Thank you for your contribution.

Simon

It is possible that Transport and Technical Services could provide an initiative to combat the offences committed by cyclists.

Where, for example, it is known that cyclists ride onto the pavement, so the kerb could be raised or edging inserted. Railings or similar would serve such a purpose.

Some kind of barrier, perhaps shrubbery or flower tubs, could also be put into place next to traffic lights in order to prevent cyclists mounting the pavements when they force their way through red lights.

One-way streets, which are frequently abused by cyclists, are problematic and I feel that the sitaution will continue until a head-on accident occurs between motorist going about his business and errant cyclist.

CCTV could be the only answer here, along with the registration plates that we all seem to agree are unfortunately required.

Concerned

Thank you, Tobias. The problem seems to me to be two fold; firstly, the cyclists cannot be identified and secondly, even if they could, then the police would refuse to act.

Those who resist the imposition of registration plates, as we see with Bill's comprehensive arguments, will say that the fact that the police do nothing means that we might as well allow the problem to be continued, presumably, until someone gest killed as a result of this lawless state of affairs.

I would sympathise with Bill to a certain extent but I cannot subscribe to the spineless "we can't do anything" view which he takes.

If a police officer refuses to entertain a complaint, then the person holding the evidence can escalate the matter in a number of ways. There would be a procedure within the States Police. There is also the parish centenier or the Attorney General.

We must also consider the matter of insurance. Sooner or later, some form of third party insurance will be required for cyclists.

At the moment, they are, effectively, immune from liability because they cannot be identified.

A cyclist riding on a pavement can cause death or life-changing injury. There are numerous reported cases in England and elsewhere.

A cyclist who causes such injury would, in all likelihood, be bailed out by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, in other words the taxpayer. This form of financial immunity, together with the lack of law enforcement which even Bill agrees to be the case, conspires to make a sizeable minority of irresponsible cyclists believe that they are completely above the law.

The current failure to police them gives rise to a failure to take reponsibility for their actions; the symptoms of this are visible in the roads around St Helier every day of the week.

Bill

Concerned, I did not say that motorists were never prosecuted, I didn’t even mention that. I also never mentioned the frankly stupid belief that cyclists break the law because motorists do. I’m not sure where you got these bizarre ideas from, but it wasn’t my posts.

To clarify.

You state people break the law because they cannot be identified.

You state that if people can be identified, you would report them.

I advise that your first statement is incorrect. I provided evidence to back up my claim which confirms your first statement completely untrue.

I follow that you would not report people who break the law if they can be identified, because you confirm that you currently do not. It is also clarified by a third person that reporting people has absolutely no affect.

Now, If you feel that cyclists who break the law are more dangerous than a motorist who breaks the law, perhaps you should look at the injuries caused by bicycles and by cars. Both are in the wrong, yet you state that you will not report a motorist who breaks the law, but you would for a cyclist and the only reason you give is that you only see cyclists break the law and are unable to see motorists from doing the same?

As it is quite clear that the vehicle registration scheme does not prevent motorists from breaking the law of a wholesale basis, it is obvious that the same scheme for cyclists would have zero affect and that to monitor the law and punish offenders needs some other scheme.

I await your next post that makes up new arguments for your already disproved belief.

Trembling

It seems a bit silly to say that "cars have number plates so you might as well not bother about bikes causing a danger". It sounds rather wishy washy in fact. Perhaps no-one should bother with anything-assualts, murder etc

Bill

Concerned, There you go again. I resist the imposition of registration plates because it is simply a stupid idea for many reasons. The only one mentioned here is that they will have zero impact on cyclists committing offences.

I continue to say road traffic offences need to be handled better, I do not distinguish between cyclists and motorists as neither has any right to break the law. The shear number of motorists breaking the law shows how large an issue this is, and putting useless plates on the minority of cyclists will have no affect on the far more dangerous motorists at all.

Once we have police that actually want to tackle the amount of road traffic offences in Jersey, then there will be a reason of road users to obey the law, and both cyclists and motorists will actually be afraid of being caught and punished.

Unfortunately, even the Honnary police do not want to act, as it creates more work, so its no use currently complaining or escalating the matter.

This means a sizeable minority of irresponsible ROAD USERS believe that they are completely above the law.

Concerned

Thanks Bill. There you go again.

You have not provided any evidence to support your argument.

I advise that the general content of your commentary is incorrect.

I follow that a large number of persons, myself included, would report cyclists who break the law if they can be identified, but presently cannot do do because, as you confirm, they currently cannot be so identfied.

That state of affairs is also clarified by a third person that appealing to these people's better judgment has absolutely no affect, hence the need to start looking at some kind of registration.

Now, If you feel that cyclists who break the law should not be crimiminalised in the same way as a motorist who breaks the law, perhaps you should look at the injuries caused by bicycles and by cars.

Both are in the wrong, yet you think for reasons best known to you that I have stated that I will not report a motorist who breaks the law. You use this silliness to support your argument that you fail to see cyclists break the law.

As it is quite clear that the vehicle registration scheme does prevent motorists from breaking the law on a wholesale basis, it is obvious that the same scheme for cyclists would have a considerable beneficial effect. Indeed, to monitor the law and punish offenders needs some scheme of that sort as you seem to be say.

I await your next post that makes up new arguments for your already disproved belief.

Katie

A cyclist riding on a pavement can cause death or life-changing injury. There are numerous reported cases of such a thing in England and elsewhere.

A cyclist who causes such injury would, in all likelihood, be bailed out by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, in other words the taxpayer.

This form of financial immunity, together with the lack of law enforcement which even Bill agrees to be the case, conspires to make a sizeable minority of irresponsible cyclists believe that they are completely above the law.

The current failure to police them gives rise to a failure to take responsibility for their actions; the symptoms of this are visible in the roads around St Helier every day of the week.

The answer therefore seems to be twofold; firstly, the reinstatement of some form of registration scheme for cyclists and secondly, as Brill identifes, a much more vigligent police approach to offences committed by persons on cycles, perhaps backed up, as Brill also suggests, by members of the public taking film footage of these extremely frequent road traffic offences.

Pedro

Introduce cycle helmets and each one has a registration number on the side. Simples.

Bill

Concerned, The evidence has been provided. Licence plates do not reduce the amount of road traffic offences as proven by the number of motorists with plates. Even worse, people have become so used to them that they, including you, do not report the frequent breaches of road traffic law, seeing it as perfectly normal.

This is why registration will not work, as I have repeated, it does not currently work for the majority of road users, so the evidence is apparent that it will change nothing.

Can you provide any evidence that registration prevents motorists from breaking the law on a wholesale basis? If you have been living in a bubble for the past few decades, I will provide recent evidence that it clearly does not. Would you consider “wholesale basis” as more than 60%?

July 2013 http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/2013/07/13/drivers-clocked-at-100-mph-on-the-avenue/

November 2011 http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/2011/11/26/100pmh-speeders-nothing-to-smile-about/

It is disconcerting that you see the tiny minority of cyclists as more of a threat than the vast number of motorists who break the law, even though motorists injure many thousands more people than cyclists.

As you currently ignore offences caused by people *with* licence plates, why would you start reporting *only* cyclists if cyclists got them as well? Almost no one else would, Simply because they dont bother to report them now, so the introduction of plates will not start a flurry of enquiries down the station.

And finally, at no point have I even suggested that cyclists should not be criminalised. This is not something I believe and defiantly not implied. I simply point out that your only suggested method of controlling them is proven not to work.

Concerned

Thanks Bill.

The links which you kindly provide are newspaper reports. If you like to believe everything that you read, then best of luck to you.

It would be prudent for you to read the magistrate’s court report in the JEP before you make further unwise comment. Check with the greffier if there is anything which you do not understand.

Your argument remains perfectly clear. You believe that motorists break the law and that this somehow excuses the widespread beaches of the road traffic law which we see committed by cyclists every day. That is your opinion. It is not a mature opinion as we know, but it nonetheless represents your stated position.

Others of higher intellect will differ, as we see. Those with small children using pavements will be aware of the danger, but this is not a situation which you recognise.

Others will say that the reason why cyclists continue to break the law of a wholesale basis is because they know that they cannot be idenfied. Some kind of registration scheme would seem to be the only answer.

I look forward to receiving your response in early course.

Thank you for your contribution.

Susan

Seems a bit odd to cite the supposed large number of motorist who speed on the avenue. Such statistics can be misleading; most of them might have been doing 41mph and therefore committing an offence of the most technical and safe nature.

To use this to somehow justify cycles going through red lights or riding pavements/one way streets etc is a very weak argument. one can only suppose that the one who makes the argument is one of the cyclists who breaks the law in this way and will doubtless continue to do so.

Bill

Concerned,

Resorting to childish comments is not very cleaver of you.

My argument is clear, yet because you don’t agree, you feel the need to change it and make things up? Why? Is your comments so badly foundered that you have to pretend other people said something they have not?

Let me break it down further, because you clearly prefer to put your fingers in your ears and shout LA, LA, LA when you’re found out to be wrong.

Road users break the law when they have licence plates. (proof, Police reports, Hansard, Magistrate’s court)

Road users break the law when they do not have licence plates. (proof, Your own personal experience)

Conclusion, Licence plates have no effect on offences committed.

An idiot would claim, given this, that licence plates prevent crime. I wouldn't have thought you was an idiot, until your most recent posts.

Everyone else would say that Road users break the law irrelevant of licence plates. They, being somewhat intelligent and capable of thinking, would see that something would have to be done to stop road users from breaking the law.

In fact, As I have said below, stop using the excuse “they don't have a licence plate” when you see a crime, Be a concerned citizen and report it. There are many crimes committed by people not on bikes that should be reported when you see it.

If you disagree, then, of course, give me evidence why, but don’t be childish and try to claim that my refusal to accept Licence plates as a panacea is some sort of approval for a cyclist crime spree.

Unless you can actually back up your claim that licence plates would stop cyclists breaking the law, then your comment is as much worth as your reports to the police.

Richard

Bill, so far as I am able to make out, it seems as though the main thrust of your argument is that cycle plates should not be imposed, because the offences committed by cyclists would continue to be unpoliced.

I think that I am correct in summarising your singular argument in that way, I hope.

You develop your argument by stating that, in your view, registration is a poor idea because cars are registered, yet car drivers, in your opinion, perist in committing offences.

You are also very enthusiatic indeed about equality on the roads; if I am correct you are anxious to avoid a situation where one group of road user is treated differently to another. You have objected strongly to the idea of anyone reporting a cyclist for moving traffic offences, because you do not believe that a motorist or motorists are ever reported for offences of a similar nature.

Given your expressed quest for equality and your view that registration is ineffective, it must

follow that you are advocating the abolition of vehicle registration and compulsory third party insurance for motor traffic. Would this be the case?

Concerned

Not at all Bill. They are not childish comments, nor is anyone trying to be "cleaver".

The links which you kindly provided are only newspaper reports. If you like to believe everything that you read, then best of luck to you.

It would be prudent for you to read the magistrate’s court report in the JEP before you make further unwise comment. Check with the greffier if there is anything which you do not understand. Please revert to us once you have dones so.

Your argument remains perfectly clear. You believe that motorists break the law and that this somehow excuses the widespread beaches of the road traffic law which we see committed by cyclists every day. That is your opinion. It is not a mature opinion as we know, but it nonetheless represents your stated position.

Others of higher intellect will differ, as we see. Those with small children using pavements will be aware of the danger, but this is not a situation which you recognise.

Others will say that the reason why cyclists continue to break the law of a wholesale basis is because they know that they cannot be idenfied. Some kind of registration scheme would seem to be the only answer. Nothing "cleaver" there, just good old fashioned common sense.

Thank you.

Bill

Richard, Thank you, Almost but not quite.

The main thrust, as you put it, is number of offences committed by road users, and how to reduce them.

I simply state that the implementation of plates would have no affect on the number of offences committed, as shown by existence of plates on motorised vehicles and the high number of offences committed by them.

There are many other reasons against the implementation of plates for cyclists, but this discussion is not about the implementation of plates, it’s about the number of offences committed by cyclists and how to reduce that number.

Registration is of course useful, especially for motorised vehicles as they require a number of other restrictions including, but not limited to, monetary value, age, required insurance and even passing a test (the last two I would recommend for bike users). You don’t see five year olds driving a car down the avenue, but you can see five year olds riding bikes. Should a child’s trike require a licence plate? If not, how would you decide the arbitrary cut off point for one, and why?

So, no, I don’t advocate removing registration, licensing or insurance for the methods of transportation currently in place.

But by bringing up the issue of equality on the roads, there is no equality in road users and I don’t suggest we start. For example, despite what some drivers would prefer, Motorised road users *must* give way to non-motorised road users, such as horses or bicycles. A little law often overlooked by motorists.

The laws are in place to protect all, and everyone should obey them, even cyclists.

I don’t object to people reporting cyclists, in fact, I encourage it. I don’t bother anymore, but I encourage others to continue.

I simply find peoples excuse that they do not report them because they don’t have licence plates as laughable. It suggests that they would report the many motorists with plates that break the law on a daily basis, but they don’t, do they? Or even that they ignore any other crime they may see that does not involve vehicles...

But back to the point.

The law should be obeyed by all users. The claim that licence plates prevent offences is spurious.

As I have been saying all along, road traffic offences should be monitored better and offences punished. Something that clearly does not happen (as people keep pointing out). Licence plates would not reduce crime, people don’t break the law because they cannot be recognised, despite Concerneds claim, they do it because they can get away with it. For road traffic offences where there isn’t a police man actually watching, they will.

People simply do not bother to report them and the police wouldn’t act if they did.

To support my last comment, I will leave you with a quote from recent Hansard.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

"We have got in reserve, as it were, the Lastec equipment which was equipment bought some time ago by the States of Jersey Police which enables an officer to set up a system where it photographs cars so you can see the number plate and so on. Not necessarily who the exact driver is. Unfortunately the police were unable to continue operating that because it generated so much paperwork"

Andy

Bill said "Road users break the law when they have licence plates. (proof, Police reports, Hansard, Magistrate’s court)"

Could you provide a link to any of these sources of "proof", Bill? Don't forget as well to include a link to the matria which deals with cyclists without plates also committing offences (and going unreportde because they can't be identified)

Sally

I think I follow Bill's logic. He states that no-one reports cyclists for offences. Therefore the offences do not happen. Therefore cycle registration is not required.

What Bill keeps missing is the fact that the reason why cycling offences are not reported is because they have no registration plates. He just can't see it!

Richard

Yes, thank you Bill.

I saw a cyclist go though a red light on the pavement in St Helier today. He narrowly missed a pedestrian as he did so. I would have reported the cyclist if he had had a registration plate.

That seems in a nutshell to be the problem. Cyclists will continue to commit dangerous offences of that nature because they do not have to be registered at present.

The better argument which comes through from this discussion is that, regretably, some form of registration will be needed in order to deal with the problem; at the moment, irresponsible cyclists are aware that they cannot be reported for want of registration, hence the escalation which we see in offences perpetuated by cyclists.

Concerned

Bill, your argument seems to be that there is no point in registering cycles, because they commit offences and no-one reports them. In your view, making them identifiable is pointless, because no one reports them.

Others, meanwhile, will say that no-one reports them because they cannot be identifed.

You will see that your argument might be viewed as as somewhat circular argument.

Alongside this, your main argument, is a subsidiary argument. This concerns motor vehicles.

In your view, no-one reports road traffic offences committed by motorists. You state that this is so, even though they do carry registration plates. You maintain this argument, when the preponderence of evidence would appear to be against you, as any examination of the Magistrates' Court table will confirm.

Moving forward, we come across another contradiction. You state that there is no point in registering cyclists because you believe that no-one reports their offending. This is a recurring theme of your commentary.

In similar form, you also believe, as we have established, that no-one reports the offending motorist either.

The contradiction becomes apparent when one compares the differing stances which you take when confronted with your account of various types of road user.

You have stated at length that registering cyclists serves no purpose because no-one reports them.

You state that no-one reports motorists either.

Oddly, however, you now acknowledge that registering motor traffic serves a useful purpose when it comes to traffic policing.

This is perhaps surprising, given your repeated assertions that no-one reports anything. Indeed, this view stands, as we have seen, in contrast to your vociferous objection to cyclists being registered.

It seems to me that there is a rather glaring inconsistency here which, again, is surprising, coming as it does from someone who has stated himself to be most vigligent in ensuring that one class of road user is not treated differently to any other.

It is becoming clear as your commentary progresses that what you exhibit in your words is something rather different to this stated aim.

Penny

If I could just pick you up on one or two points, Bill?

In your slightly muddled and somewhat aggressive posts you express concern at the fact that you think that some offences are noticed while others are not. I cannot comment on how your mind works but it seem as though you might have a difficulty with seeing the law enforced in a proper way.

What I see everyday are bikes riding the wrong way though town and committing various other moving traffic offences. This is very dangerous.

A car driving the wrong way up Gloucester Street or down the precinct would be reported very quickly, but a bike cannot be reported for these frequent occurrences at the moment because bikes have no plates. This is, as you state, something of a problem and registration plates would seem to be the way forward.

You then go on to mention cars speeding on the avenue and suggest that this somehow licences the very dangerous cycling which is now common. Again, I sympathise, although a breach of the speeding law by one type of road user cannot legalise the wholesale abuse by another which we agree occurs.

In legal and practical terms, an onlooker cannot secure a conviction against a speeding motorist because some form of expert or electronic corroboration is required under the road traffic law.

On the other hand, a cyclist riding the one way though town or running a red light is something which could be acted upon. A single witness, perhaps supported by closed circuit footage, would be enough to secure a conviction.

“Concerned” would report such offences, soo too would many others, myself included. At the moment, cyclists tend to ignore the law because they know that they cannot be identified.

I hope that the above helps with your difficulty.

Aaron

I think I follow everyone elses logic so I will join Concerned and the other trolls by making up a comment intended to inflame the situation.

Because Bill does not agree that cyclists break the law because they cannot be identified clearly show he thinks rapists should murder small children and be taken on holiday at the taxpayers expense!

Bill

Sally,

Is benefit fraud not reported because people don’t know the social security number?

What about vandalism? What form of identification number is required to report that?

Or is it some sort of special, unspoken rule that stops people reporting other people on a bicycle simply because a lack of an identification number.

Are you suggesting that crime would be ignored if it happened on a bike? what about a unicycle mugger? Would that also not be reported? how about a tandem rapist? Its clearly getting absurd!

What I just cant see is why people, such as you, say you will not report a crime because you dont have a number to quote.

Concerned

Thanks Bill/Aaron (same person?).

I am sorry that I express a view. I note the term used, but would imagine that those who post comments regarding children are more likely to attract the use of the term.

Your argument has been put; you should not feel the need to resort to name calling.

The position is and remains quite clear. Cyclists sadly commit road traffic offences because they cannot be identified. I am sorry that this view angers you so much. It is my view and that is the end of it, I am afraid.

The Old Bill

Concerned, Do you really think that the Magistrates Court table only lists road traffic offences that have been reported by a third party, or have you mistaken it for a report of those caught by the police?

It is very rare for the police to act on any report unless it A) Involves harm to person or property, B) Involves alcohol or C) is continued and repeated.

Bill

Concerned, Penny, a couple of simple questions to you both.

When was the last time you reported a road traffic offence?

Do you ever see any, not committed by a cyclist?

So, if you are not medically blind, you would be aware of the many road traffic offences that happen all the time all around you. Unless you live in the lobby of the police station, you would struggle to find time to report them all.

Or do you not report every road traffic offence?

Sally

But is it not the case that Bill stated that no-one reports cyclists for offences? Therefore the offences do not happen. Therefore cycle registration is not required?

Surely the reason why cycling offences are not reported is because they have no registration plates. Not sure how social security comes into it- I just know that I see bikes on pavements and up one-way streets and you can't report them because they have no number.

Graham

Old Bill:

" It is very rare for the police to act on any report unless it A) Involves harm to person or property, B) Involves alcohol or C) is continued and repeated."

Cyclists would seem to come within category "c" (c for cyclists!) in the sense that their offending is indeed continued and repeated, like the chap who Tobias sees every morning riding up Don Street the wrong way.

Penny

I have reported the odd motor offence. Once I had to give evidence. On other occasions, I undertstand that words of advice were issued. Yes, I know that you will come on here, Bill and tell me that I haven't- please feel free to do so.

I would have reported offences committed by cyclists had the cyclists had some form of identification. Again, I expect you to tell me that I wouldn't have done so.

As has been stated above, your arguments might carry somewhat more weight if you were to confine your expression to matters which are witin your own knowledge and not persist in telling others what they might have thought or done and what they might be thinking now.

It is also notable that you only reposnd to certain parts of certain posts, mine included, which shows that you only feel comfortable delaing with issues when your operate at a fairly low level, or when you adopt a stance which attacks the personality or subjective thoughts of the person making the point.

Cycle plates are necessary. As a cyclist myself, I find this annoying, but it is a clear case of a minority spoiling it for the majority.

Concerned

An interesting variation on your argument there, Bill. Thank you.

You now suggest that all road traffic offences should be reported. Taken in conjunction with your earlier comments about discrimination, you are clearly of a view that, if one were to report a cyclist, then one would have to report every other road traffic offence committed by every other class of road.

This is, I perceive, a strand of your "equality" argument which is used to support your view that one class of road should be registered, while another should not.

Many will see that it is difficult for one to address such unusual reasoning. For my part, I would not report every road traffic offence which I see. I would report the offences which I would wish to report. In much the same way as a police officer might, I would exercise my discretion.

Unfortunately, that discretion is presently fettered. Although it is entirely possible for a meaningful report to be made of an offending motorist, it is unfortunately the case that a similar report cannot be made where a cyclist is concerned.

The reason for that is quite straightforward. The perpetrator of a road traffic offence committed in a motor vehicle is readily identifiable through the registration of that vehicle, whereas the perpetrator of a road traffic offence by the rider of a cycle is not identifiable due to the fact that bicyles are not required to be registered at the given time.

I hope that this helps.

Bill

Thank you Penny, for reporting the odd motor offence.

But why only the odd one? Why not every one? Perhaps it would be more informative to know which offences were reported and why, along with why the other offences were not? But this is not the place for that.

Perhaps I should make it clear that “People do not report motor offences (apart from exceptional circumstances)”.

As Old Bill points out, the Police might take the details but rarely do anything unless it has harmed someone or is about alcohol (which they actually encourage people to report).

So, you then say you don’t bother to report other offences you may witness because you cannot identify the person involved with a simple number? It shows a disregard towards a civilised society. You have stated that you wouldn’t report vandalism, or burglary or any other crime that does not involve a vehicle with a number plate? I find this strange and unbelievable and I don't think this is what you intended to say. It seems a funny excuse only to report crime if you have seen a number, but if you want to convince yourself that’s the right thing…..

Cycle plates are not necessary if the introduction is purely to reduce crime. People simply need to start reporting offences, not using the excuse "they didnt have a number for me to quote" as an excuse.

It is foolish to think that a method, shown to have no impact on crime rate, will suddenly have an impact on crime rate.

There is no logical reason for plates on bicycles

Bill

Thank you, Concerned It helps alot.

As you say, you would report the offences which you would wish to report.

Your desire to report only cyclists, whilst ignoring the superior volume of motorists suggests a hint of cyclophobia, which confirms Baz Du Monts comment below that this is an "illogical hatred some people seem to reserve for cyclists" A comment you counter that "Cyclists committing moving traffic offences are extremely dangerous." Again both ignoring the volume of motorists who are even more dangerous and confirming the statement.

Your illogical hatred (which, as a phopia is quite natural) extends to your inability to report the quite identifiable people that commit offences on bicycles.

Of course, people in large metal boxes with most of their body hidden and what little visible is behind glass would need a secondary method of identification. Using the Licence plates to identify the car owner helps, but clearly does not identify the person committing the offence.

Luckily bicycles are not large metal boxes which hide people, so the person in control is immediately identifiable, (rather than licence plates that would identify the devices owner only) but I understand fully that your illogical hatred will not allow you to understand the quite logical response to your fear.

I hope you do find the strength or the help to overcome your debilitating issue, but demanding the government resolve it for you by adding unnecessary number plates to all human powered transportation is going a bit too far! I suppose with the government wanting to control what internet sites we visit, because some parents don't want to raise their children properly has set a precedence.

Penny

On the contrary, Bill. There is every logical reason to implement registration plates on cycles.

At the moment, those who commit offences on cylces cannot be reported because they cannot be identified. The re-introduction of plates would alleviate this problem and put cycles on an equal footing with other road users.

It seems perfectly logical to me.

Bill

Penny,

As stated, those who commit offences on cycles can be reported. It is factitious to claim they cannot because of a lack of number plates, so this is not a logical statement.

Being able to identify the owner of a cycle would not alleviate this problem as the offence is caused by the visibly identifiable rider; so again, this is not a logical statement.

On the other hand, a fully enclosed metal shell of a car makes identification of the driver much harder due to its shape and difficulty for non authorised people to access over a bike. As such, licence plates along with a description of the vehicle will help the police identify the owner in case of accident or offence. After all, beside the number plate, vehicles prudently display insignias to identify the make (and often model) which is required along with colour to match the plate on the database. Otherwise the plate may have been identified incorrectly and the wrong person prosecuted.

How many makes and models of bicycle can you identify? If you cannot name more than a couple, and the issue is truly about people breaking the law because they cannot be identified (which Is not true as proven elsewhere), then it would simply be a case of cyclists modifying their plates because people reporting them would only have a number and not the matching make, model or colour so could not identify the true culprit.

Doing the same on a car is much harder due to the other methods to identify the same vehical which would also be on the registration database.

Penny

Bil said "You have stated that you wouldn’t report vandalism, or burglary or any other crime that does not involve a vehicle with a number plate? I find this strange and unbelievable and I don’t think this is what you intended to say."

You don't think that that is what I intended to say, because I did not say it. Please do try and keep up, Bill.

It certainly is strange and unbelievable, to use your phrase.

Your esoteric and outlandish idea regarding persons bearing numbers is a strange and amusing one, but unfortunately, in advancing this fascinating concept, you continue to miss the rather obvious distinction between a pedestrian and someone who is operating a machine as part of road traffic.

Presumably, the idea of a burglar riding a bicycle has not yet occurred to you, but if such a thing were to occur, he wouldn't be reported in your view even if his bicycle bore a registration number with figures six feet high and illuminated in finest neon. :)

Concerned

We're at it again, Bill aren't we? Hello old chap.

We seem to be telling others again how they think and what they might do in a particular situation don't we?

Now you are telling me that "I would report only cyclists".

I have not said that. Have you, by any chance?

You also speak of a "phopia". I do not know what a phopia is. Do you?

The closing words of my last post may make more sense than your somehat garbled response. Here are those words again, which you acknowledge to have been of assistance to you.

Although it is entirely possible for a meaningful report to be made of an offending motorist, it is unfortunately the case that a similar report cannot be made where a cyclist is concerned.

The reason for that is quite straightforward. The perpetrator of a road traffic offence committed in a motor vehicle is readily identifiable through the registration of that vehicle, whereas the perpetrator of a road traffic offence by the rider of a cycle is not identifiable due to the fact that bicyles are not required to be registered at the given time.

I am glad that this has helped.

Celia Newfarrow

Bill, you adopt a new argument now, which I shall refer to as the "visible driver argument".

You express your idea thus:

"Luckily bicycles are not large metal boxes which hide people, so the person in control is immediately identifiable, (rather than licence plates that would identify the devices owner only)."

What would your views be on forklift trucks, tractors, combine harvestors and perhaps locomotives where the driver is visible on a footplate?

Would you support the existing registration of such vehicles, or would you seek to abrogate it on the ground that the driver is visible and is enjoying open air surroundings?

Slinky Sandra

Bill writes:

"As stated, those who commit offences on cycles can be reported. It is factitious to claim they cannot because of a lack of number plates, so this is not a logical statement.

Being able to identify the owner of a cycle would not alleviate this problem as the offence is caused by the visibly identifiable rider; so again, this is not a logical statement."

This sounds like a nonsense to me. Anyone with half a brain would realise that cyclists cannot be reported for offences because they have no means of identification- now we have someone telling us that we don't need registration because the rider can be seen.

I drive a convertible and I can be seen. Can I remove my registration plates?

Priceless!

Bill

Slinky Sandra, I am sorry you only have half a brain.

As clearly mentioned, People can identify cyclists because the rider can clearly be identified. This is in response to the claim registration plates are required because people cannot identify the rider.

If people continue to claim that they cannot identify people without plates, then they must also claim that pedestrians require plates, children require them, dogs, horses and cows all should have plates.

But having half a brain, these people would not understand.

You cannot remove your registration plates from your convertable. I am not sure why you even asked? Registration plates are to identify the owner of the vehical. They have no relation to the person driving and if they can be seen or not.

Bill

Celia, the "visible driver argument" as you put it, is not a new argument. It is one of a many responses to the "cyclists cannot be identified to the police" statement made by many. it is a foolish statement which has been proven incorrect multiple times, but it still remains to be the only reason why some people are demanding the extension of motor vehicle registration to cyclists.

Cyclists can be identified quite easily. They are highly visible and exposed. They are not hidden behind any framework and even if they do have helmets, those used do not cover the face, allowing for full identification.

This, actually means that they are more easily identified than other offences that people may commit because the additional information available. Colour, make, style of bike etc. Identifying a cyclist committing an offence is far easier than identifying the person responsible for a motor vehicle offence.

The last sentence, I am sure, will be argued about by many, with claims that vehicle registration makes it easier to identify the person responsible.

This is clearly not true as the registrar is for the owner of the vehicle, not the person committing the offence.

In all, the claim, “Cyclists break the law because they cannot be identified” is factually incorrect in itself. And Registration of cyclists to prevent crime is not a good idea, because it is based on a list of false claims.

Slinky Sandra

Apologies Bill if you did not understand my post. I stated that the argument regarding the driver of a vehicle being visible (your new, "visible driver" argument) is a a nonsense that must have been put by someone with half a brain.

I was not stating that I had half a brain, I was stating that the person who puts the "visible driver" argument must suffer from this affliction.

I hope that this half-clarifies the matter for you.

Celia Newfarrow

Thanks, Bill.

You repeat your new point when you say that cycles do not need to be registered because the driver is visible.

What would your views be on forklift trucks, tractors, combine harvestors and perhaps locomotives where the driver is visible on a footplate?

Would you support the existing registration of such vehicles, or would you seek to abrogate it on the ground that the driver is visible and is enjoying open air surroundings?

Poppy

Bill, can I refer for a moment to one of your arguments, please?

I refer her to your second argument, which I might describe as the "pedestrians bearing number plates" argument.

You are suggesting that, if cyclists are moved to bear registration, then so too should pedestrians.

You difficulty here is that cyclists constitute road traffic. Road traffic has historically been registered, chiefly in order to enable those who breach the rules of the road to be identified. Pedestrians are not road traffic, whereas a cyclist is. A cyclist is subject to a body of laws relating to road traffic and the necessary policing of the same, whereas a pedestrian is not.

I think that this effectively deals with the point.

It could be added that the adding of number plates to pedestrians would have legal consequences under the human rights law and elsewhere. I feel, however, that you will not need to consider these further considerations once you have read the above and concluded, inevitably I hope, that your argument fails at the most basic stage.

Can I now move onto your third and latest argument, namely the "visible person" argument? In the above comment, Sandra questions why she might not remove the number plates of her convertible car. You question why she asks this question.

Well, the point which she makes is quite clear to me. You have argued that cyclists should not be registered because they are visible on their cycles, hence the "visible person" argument. Sandra is clearly a visible person in her convertible,. It follows, therefore, that your "visible person" argument would apply to Sandra and indeed to any other road user driving a vehicle where the driver is visible.

Both of the above points might also be read in the light of your earlier and latterly neglected argument, this being the "no-one reports anyone anyway" argument. On this ground alone, we might expect you to support the immediate de-registration of all vehicles, something which, contrary to your own logic, you are seemingly quite reluctant to do.

Wearing elastic, gov'nor

I don't see how Bill's "visible person argument" could work at all.

Many cyclists wear lycra, particularly the more aggressive ones. This makes it extemely unlikely that an identification could be made on Bill's "visible person" standard. What about if they are wearring a cycle helmet as well?

I saw a cyclist wearing a full face motorcyle helmet a few weeks ago. What is to stop all cyclists wearing one if Bill's "visible person" argument were to be adopted, which it clearly can't be because it really is nonsense, as I am sure even he will know by now.

Bill

Poppy, The “pedestrians bearing number plates” argument as you so put it is an extension of the absurdity that crimes cannot be reported without a number plate.

If this statement was true, which it clearly is not, then there can be no argument against the introduction of number plates to pedestrians.

You seem to be misunderstanding the issue. You belive that Road traffic has historically been registerd. With a little mature thought (as Janet would say) you would realise it has been motorised vehicals registered since the early 1900s. I assure you that roads existed long before that and historically road traffic was conducted on either two or four legs, often with a horse. Whist for a section of that period, cycles (then only available to adults due to physical size) were registered under different laws without large, easily visible number plates and the law was removed because it no longer became fit for purpose.

As you will then understand, historically, road traffic has not been registered. Motor vehicles, on the other hand, have. Pedestrians, are then, road traffic, as you would understand. the term pedestrian means to travel by foot, and if this is done via a road, pedestrians are traffic.

This is of course, all a moot point.

A cyclist is subject to sections of the law relating to road traffic and pedestrians are also subject to sections of the same laws.

I think that this effectively deals with the point.

In addition, the “visible person” argument as you put it is made by people who want registration. I used it in relation to the claim that crime cannot be reported. Apparently no crime can be reported without plates. which, as mentioned above, pedestrians don’t have plates. So, by this thinking, no crime except for motor related crime is ever reported, which is contrary to actual reality.

Why Sandra questions if she can remove her number plates, simply because she can be seen is, frankly, obsurd. But can be explained by the notion that registration is *only* to report crime. Once Sandra understands the reason that number plates were introduced and that it was not simply to report crime, she would understand why her statement is absurd. But if you don’t understand this particular issue, then perhaps have another think about how people can be reported for an offence.

To make it quite clear,

I do not object to registration of bicycles, in fact, I haven’t mentioned a preference either way. This is something other people have assumed.

Registration and number plates are two separate issues.

I object to the introduction of number plates on the flimsy excuse that offences cannot be reported without them.

I do believe that it will not prevent crime as this has already been proven with over a century of data on motorised vehicles.

I do believe that offences can be reported, but people do not bother for a variety of reasons.

So, as the two reasons presented here for the introduction of number plates have been shown to be incorrect, then what reason is there for number plates?

Margot

Bill, I refer to your second argument, which is the “pedestrians bearing number plates” argument.

You are suggesting that, if cyclists are moved to bear registration, then so too should pedestrians.

The difficulty here is that cyclists constitute road traffic. Road traffic has historically been registered, chiefly in order to enable those who breach the rules of the road to be identified.

Pedestrians are not road traffic, whereas a cyclist is. A cyclist is subject to a body of laws relating to road traffic and the necessary policing of the same, whereas a pedestrian is not.

I think that this effectively deals with the point.

It could be added, with a little mature thought on your part, that the adding of number plates to pedestrians would have legal consequences under the human rights law and elsewhere.

I feel, however, that you will not need to consider these further considerations once you have read the above and concluded, inevitably I hope, that your argument fails at the most basic stage.

Can I now move onto your latest argument, namely the “visible person” argument?

In the above comment, Sandra questions why she might not remove the number plates of her convertible car.

The point which she makes is quite clear to me. You have argued that cyclists should not be registered because they are visible on their cycles, hence the “visible person” argument.

Sandra is clearly a visible person in her convertible,. It follows, therefore, that your “visible person” argument would apply to Sandra and indeed to any other road user driving a vehicle where the driver is visible, perhaps a person driving a tractor.

Both of the above points might also be read in the light of your earlier and latterly neglected argument, this being the “no-one reports anyone anyway” argument.

On this ground alone, we might expect you to support the immediate de-registration of all vehicles, something which, contrary to your own logic, you are seemingly quite reluctant to do.

Padlocked fridge

We're at it again, aren't we, Bill?

"A cyclist is subject to sections of the law relating to road traffic and pedestrians are also subject to sections of the same laws.

I think that this effectively deals with the point."

Does it Bil? I don't think so.

Have you ever seen a pedestrian prosecuted for speeding? Running a red light? Riding on the pavement? Travelling at night without lights?

Which provisions of the Road Traffic Law applies to pedestrians?

For goodness sake.

Bill

Padlocked fridge.

Road Traffic Law 1956 Revised edition.

As an example, one that actually states the phrase "pedestrian traffic"

"69 (3) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (2), any Order made thereunder may prohibit pedestrian traffic on the carriageway within 100 yards of a crossing,"

but perhaps you believe the above postes that pedesrians cannot use roads and history only goes as far back as the invention of the car.

To make it clear, in accordance with the law,

Pedestrians are road traffic, and are subject to a body of laws relating to road traffic and the necessary policing of the same.

To state they are not is to be ignorant of the law.

Now, you know.

As said above, I think that this effectively deals with the point.

Padlocked Fridge

Is that all that you could find Bill?

You will have to do better than that if you wish to redeem yourself.

The provision in question specifically deals with pedestrian crossings. Furthermore, the term "pedestrian traffic" is not legally defined, far less deemed to be part of road traffic as you suggest.

May we now refer to this as your "road traffic argument"?

Poppy

You fall into error again, Bill.

Pedestrians are not road traffic. Before I address that point for you, I must say that I have noticed that you adopt my wording in your post. Thank you. I am flattered by this imitation.

Now that you implicitly recognise that others are able to articulate themselves in a way to which you can aspire, can I assume that we might shortly look forward to your arguments themselves becoming of a correspondingly aspirational quality?

Back to the point which you seem to be trying to make. The model wording upon which you cast your admiring eye states as follows and I am pleased to be able to repeat it for you.

Your difficulty here is that cyclists constitute road traffic. Road traffic has historically been registered, chiefly in order to enable those who breach the rules of the road to be identified. Pedestrians are not road traffic, whereas a cyclist is so deemed.

A cyclist is subject to a body of laws relating to road traffic and the necessary policing of the same, whereas a pedestrian is not.

I think that this effectively deals with your point.

Bill

Padlocked Fridge.

There is not enough room here to quote the entire law, which is why I provided an example.

Yes, the example does relate to pedestrian crossings, which states that pedestrian traffic is prohibited within a distance of such.

Please note, it clarifies "pedestrian traffic" in relation to just traffic, motor traffic or any other kind.

By your standards, "Road Traffic" is also not legally defined.

But one would draw conclusion that "Traffic", "Road" and "Pedestrian" have clear definitions, with “Pedestrian" having clarification in Jersey law to include wheelchairs. As such, there can be no confusion over the terms.

Motor traffic, on the other hand, is entirely different.

Bill

Poppy,

You are embarrassing yourself.

Roads have existed for a lot longer than cars. Thousands of years longer.

Roads have existed a lot longer than registration of vehicles. Thousands of years longer.

As such, your statement "Road traffic has historically been registered" is entirely incorrect.

I hope you, being a reasonable person, will apologise for this oversight.

Your following statement "chiefly in order to enable those who breach the rules of the road to be identified.” is likewise entirely incorrect.

Motor vehicle registration in Jersey is only for the reporting of accidents to police, as clearly stated under ROAD TRAFFIC (JERSEY) LAW 1956 Revised Edition, section 52, 1, b. There is no reference at all in Jersey law of registration being to enable those who breach the rules to be identified.

Of course, I will draw your attention to the Motor Vehicle Registration (General Provisions) (Jersey) Order 1993, which details how vehicles are registered, but not why.

As you now understand this, I would also understand your apology for your error. I agree that it can be used to report offenses, but it is legally and historically for the reason stated in Jersey Law.

As you now understand that your first two statements are entirely incorrect you will conclude that, your third "Pedestrians are not road traffic, whereas a cyclist is so deemed." follows this same pattern.

As confirmed to Padlocked fridge, Pedestrians are clearly road traffic, as by the definition of the word as well as Jersey law.

I am hopeful that understanding this last part, you will again admit your error in the above posts, but I fully expect you to ignore reality and re-post your same comment, which would indicate to everyone that you would be trolling.

Padlocked Fridge

Well, let us go though your latest contribution then, Bill.

"There is not enough room here to quote the entire law, which is why I provided an example."

In fact, you provided the only example which exists within the entire law. This sole example appears within a specific provision which deals with pedestrian crossings.

"Yes, the example does relate to pedestrian crossings, which states that pedestrian traffic is prohibited within a distance of such."

No. it states that an order may be made which deals with pedestrian traffic within a certain distance of a pedestrian crossing.

"Please note, it clarifies “pedestrian traffic” in relation to just traffic, motor traffic or any other kind."

No. "Pedestrian traffic" is not a legally defined term within the statute. I do not understand the last words of the garbled point that you are trying to make.

"By your standards, “Road Traffic” is also not legally defined."

Quite right. "Road Traffic" is not legally defined, whether in that statute or elsewhere. Presumably no law draftsman has deemed it necessary, because it is a term which has a usual, commonsense meaning.

The Royal Court of Jersey has not judicially defined the term, either, presumably because no advocate has been foloish enough to advance a case on the basis that pedestrians constitute road traffic of that cyclists do not have to obey the law.

If there were any doubt about cycles constituting road traffic, then it would be clear that cyclists would not be subject to the road traffic laws. That, of course, is emphatically not the case

"But one would draw conclusion that “Traffic”, “Road” and “Pedestrian” have clear definitions, with “Pedestrian” having clarification in Jersey law to include wheelchairs. As such, there can be no confusion over the terms."

I don't follow this. If you are suggesting again that pedestrians constitute road traffic, then you are mistaken yet again.

"Motor traffic, on the other hand, is entirely different."

Yes, Bill. But you continue to miss the fact that cyclists are subject to the road traffic laws, while pedestrians are not.

Cyclists commit road traffic offences, but cannot be reported for want of registration plates. Hence, the need to re-introduce some form of cycle registration.

Poppy

I don't thiank that I am embarrassing myself, Bill, I think that I am embarrassing you.

Pedestrians are not road traffic. Are you really trying to argue that they are?

Cyclists constitute road traffic.

Road traffic has historically been registered, chiefly in order to enable those who breach the rules of the road to be identified. Pedestrians are not road traffic, whereas a cyclist is so deemed. At the present time, cyclists are not required to be registered.

A cyclist is subject to a body of laws relating to road traffic and the necessary policing of the same, whereas a pedestrian is not.

Invisible Person

Well, I shake my head in disbelief when I read all of this. Bill, are you sure that you are on the right thread here? The right planet?

You argue that pedestrians are road traffic, yet you don't seem to understand that pedestrians are not subject to road traffic laws. Why would that be, do you think?

Your kiddies' bike and skateboard argument-ridiculous! If a cycle is used on the road, it should be regsitered. If not, then it will not be registered. It really is very simple.

I too looked up the road traffic law. Pedestrians are only described in one part, because the state has to have a means of controlling pedestrians at pedestrian crossings. Does this make pedestrians traffic? No.

Bill

Poppy, Yes, you have embarrassed yourself again.

Despite advising you that registration is barely 100 years old yet road traffic has existed for thousands of years, you still repeat the claim many times that historically road traffic has been registered.

Simply, you are wrong in that claim.

Bill

Padlocked Fridge.

Let me understand what you are saying.

If a term is not legally defined within the statute, it requires to have a common sense meaning?

On that basis, you claim Pedestrians are not road traffic.

Is this because the terms are not defined or is it because the term has no common sense meaning?

Now, the term “Road” is legally defined within the statute as ““road” means any public road, any other road to which the public has access, any road administered by the Minister for Housing, any of the roads on the Rue des Près Trading Estate, any bridge over which a road passes and any sea beach;[22]

Whereas “Pedestrian traffic” is of course not a legally defined term within the statute, and, as you say, presumably no law draftsman has deemed it necessary to legally define this as it is a term which has a usual, commonsense meaning.

Just in case common sense meaning is lost, let me provide the dictionary definitions.

Definition of Traffic?

“The passage of people or vehicles along routes of transportation”

Definition of Pedestrian?

"A person travelling on foot"

So, by common sense definition of the English language terms Pedestrians constitute Road traffic. .

So why argue that pedestrians are not traffic when the English Language is quite clear on the subject and even the law draftsmen feel that this is common sense?

Hugh Scullery

I too have looked through the road traffic law.

Pedestrians are not road traffic, nor does the law so deem them. I would imagine that there would be various legal and human rights difficulties in changing the law, as you suggest, to make pedestrians into road traffic.

Would you, for example, envisage pedestrians being subject to road traffic laws? Would they have to stop at red traffic lights?

Whoever has posted in the above explains the matter very well. The part of the road traffic law upon which you have seized simply relates to pedestrian crossings. The inclusion of wheelchairs within the description of pedestrian is included in order to enable wheelchair-bound persons to be controlled in and around the pedestrian crossing. It is probably also a description which pays service to the right of the disabled to be treated within the law in the same way as any other person.

Note that I have referred to the "description" of pedestrian within the law. That is not the same as a legal definition. Indeed, as has been stated, the word "pedestrian" is not legally defined within the road traffic law, nor would it likely to be so, because pedestrians are not road traffic.

This, I believe, is where your confusion lies.

In summary, your "pedestrians are road traffic" argument is not your strongest ground, Bill.

I struggle to think which, if any, of your arguments to date stands up to any scrutiny. The only one which seems to make any sense at all is the one where you try to argue that cycle registration serves no purpose because no-one reports anything anyway.

Although this seems to me to be your only argument of any sense, it may nonetheless be countered by the observation that it is a circular argument in the sense that no-one reports cyclists anyway because cyclists have no registration and therefore they cannot be reported in any meaningful manner. This seems to be a recurring theme, both within this thread and indeed every day on the roads in and around St Helier.

I hope that this helps.

Gillian

Pedestrians are road traffic.

Unlike others, I have taken the time to look at the Road traffic law.

There is nothing to define what road traffic consists of.

As such, it is common sense to assume anything that uses a road is considered road traffic. This would clearly involve pedestrians.

Why has the claim that pedestrians are not legally permitted to use a road even come up?

Clearly, the law deals with red lights quite specifically by refering to "any person driving any vehicle" thereby rendering the issue regarding pedestrians and lights pointless. They are not required by law to stop at red traffic lights because the law specifically states that only persons driving any vehicle need to follow that particular section of the law..

I hope this helps

Padlocked Fridge

No, I don't thinks so, Bill.

Pedestrians are not road traffic. What a nonsense!

Why do you think that pedestrians are not subject to the raod traffic lawa?

Cyclists are road traffic.

Why do you think that cyclists are subject to the road traffic lawa?

Poppy

Yes, I think that I am embarrassing you again, Bill. Why do you put such silly arguments?

You really are trying to argue that pedestrians are road traffic. Do you stop at red traffic lights when you go for a walk, Bill?

A cyclist is subject to a body of laws relating to road traffic and the necessary policing of the same, whereas a pedestrian is not. The reason for this is that, whereas cyclists are a specie of raod traffic, pedestrians are not.

Matthews

I don't think that pedestrian traffic has a usual, commonsense, meaning as Bill says. It sounds completely bonkers.

Then again, I didn't think that Bill's "visible person" argument was a usual, commonsense one so perhaps I shouldn't be all that surprised.

Rodney Trotter

Well, let's just ask Bill. Someoneelse asked him the following questions. Not surprisingly, he did not answer. Here they are again.

Have you ever seen a pedestrian prosecuted for speeding? Running a red light? Riding on the pavement? Travelling at night without lights?

Which provisions of the Road Traffic Law applies to pedestrians?

Kevin

I don't think that pedestrians are road traffic, Gillian.

Even if we accept the argument that pedestrians are road traffic, where does that takes us?

Whetever you might like to call them, pedestrians are not subject to the road traffic law. Cyclists, on the other hand are so subject.

The point of this thread is that cyclists who break the law cannot, at the present time, be identified, because cycles bear no registration plate.

Bill

Wow, and you lot say my comments don’t make sense.

Padlocked Fridge, Poppy, Matthews. You disagree that Pedestrians count as road traffic because the sections of law that applies to motor cars do not apply to pedestrians?

Well, the law disagrees with you. Read on.

Rodney Trotter,

Please can you provide better examples?

Have I ever seen a pedestrian prosecuted for speeding? Under the Road Traffic Law 1956, (21 (1) Limitation of speed) This law only applies to motor vehicles.

Running a red light?

Again, Under the Road Traffic Law 1956, (74 (1) (a) Penalties for neglect of traffic directions) This law only applies to Vehicles.

Riding on the pavement?

Physically impossible to do without a vehicle.

Travelling at night without lights?

Again, this applies to vehicles, although Pedestrians are advised to wear reflective material.

As a reminder, The Highway code, which details the different classes of Road traffic, mentions that "The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders." It also has an entire section entitled "Rules for pedestrians (1 to 35)"

So, if the Highway code describes Pedestrians as road traffic, Why do so many people one here believe they are not?

Cyclone

Traffic in the modern sense does not include pedestrians. Come on, be sensible.

Bill, you are losing credibility with everyone on here.

Padlocked Fridge

Off again, I see Bill. "The highway code describes pedestrians as road users". Err., yes.

What about pedestrians being road traffic? Anything there? Erm, no! You interchange "road users" with "road traffic" with such ignorant zeal that I nearly missed it.

Even if pedestrians are road traffic, which they are not, they are not subject to a body of laws which applies to cars, cyclists etc.

As we have seen from this thread, the problem which is posed arises from the fact that cycles are subject to the law but, being unregistred cannot be reported. That is why cyclists continue to break the law with impunity.

Still, at least I and others are making you look up the law and exercise some thought so the exercise is not entirely fruitless, I hope.

Del Boy

No, I like these examples.

Here they are again.

Have you ever seen a pedestrian prosecuted for speeding? Running a red light? Riding on the pavement? Travelling at night without lights?

Which provisions of the Road Traffic Law applies to pedestrians?

Poppy

No, Bill thirtysomething.

I disgree with you proposition that pedestrians are road traffic because, quite plainly, they are not.

You argue that "pedestrian traffic" has a plain, common sense menaning. I would disagree. It is not a term which many people would ever have heard, let alone ascribe to it the meaning which you argue.

You are reading laws that you do not fully understand and making yourself look rather silly.

Baz Du Mont

Excellent point, Bill, showing up the illogical hatred some people seem to reserve for cyclists. Jealousy of some sort, I imagine.

Concerned

I would beg to differ, Baz. Cyclists committing moving traffic offences are extremely dangerous.

I can't say that I have ever seen a car driving through St Helier the wrong way- were such a thing to happen then it would doubtless quickly be reported. Yet we see such offences being committed by cyclists on a daily basis.

Cycle plates are most probably the answer, although, as a cyclist myself, it is most annoying to predict that a selfish growing minority of rider may well spoil it for the rest of us.

Jealousy? No, just concern at the prospect of a serious accident and at a failure to enforce the road traffic laws.

Perhaps,as you admit, you imagine jealousy to be the motivation behind my comment because that is something which forms part of your sense of values.

If you have anything more helpful to add then I should be grateful to read a more meaningful contribution from you.

Thank you.

Manny

I don't see a problem with cycle plates, insurance etc. It just puts cyclists on an equal footing with other road users and stops placing them as they think above the law.

Responsible cyclists and cycling groups would endorse the idea because they have nothing to hide. The only ones who object would be those who have something to hide and carry on breaking the law, which is the very people that the registration scheme will catch out.

Janet

Bill; you express concern at the fact that you think that some offences are noticed while others are not. It seems as though you have a difficulty with seeing the law enforced in a proper way.

What I see everyday are bikes riding the wrong way though town and committing various other moving traffic offences. This is very dangerous.

A car driving the wrong way up Gloucester Street or down the precinct would be reported very quickly, but a bike cannot be reported for these frequent occurrences at the moment because bikes have no plates.

This is, as you state, something of a problem and registration plates would seem to be the way forward.

You then go on to mention cars speeding on the avenue and suggest that this somehow licenses the very dangerous cycling which is now common. Again, I sympathise with your simplistic view, although a breach of the speeding law by one type of road user cannot legalise the wholesale abuse by another which we agree occurs.

In legal and practical terms, an onlooker cannot secure a conviction against a speeding motorist because some form of expert or electronic corroboration is required under the road traffic law.

On the other hand, a cyclist riding the one way though town or running a red light is something which could be acted upon. A single witness, perhaps supported by closed circuit footage, would be enough to secure a conviction.

You therefore suggest that we report cyclists who break the law by filming them on mobile phones.

Unfortunately there is still the problem of identification. The police will not know who the cyclist is and the cyclist, if he is like many, will deny any wrongdoing.

So, we return to what would appear to be the only answer- registration plates on cycles. In that way, your idea to film the many cyclists who break the law would be effective, although it is clear that an awful lot of filming would be required. No doubt this is something with which you would be pleased to assist.

I hope that the above helps with your continuing difficulty.

Bill

Janet, I see cars driving through red lights every day, Very dangerous! Illegally parked cars, defective or no lights. Recently saw a car go down Stopford road the wrong way. Even the police know that too may people speed, but don’t want to tackle the problem, So yes, Janet, I do have difficulty with seeing the law enforced in a proper way, because the law is not enforced at all.

But you are wrong. Bikes *can* be reported even though they don’t have plates. So can burglars, shoplifters and vandals, and they certainly don’t have plates. Most crimes occur without plates. So we can conclude that the absence of plates does not stop the crime from being reported and as we also see, the presence of plates does not prevent crime and it certainly does not make the police act on the report.

At no point have I ever suggested that breaking the law is excusable so I am a little shocked that you came to the conclusion that because speeding on the avenue is proof that licence plates do not stop offences from happening, you claim it is an excuse for other people to commit offences. How you have come to such a conclusion concerns me.

So, the only answer you can think to stop people from committing an offence is to use a system that is conclusively shown to be ineffective.

If it doesn’t work, Why use it. There are better options.

Janet

You might well be concerned at the fact that others read things from your posts, Bill.

The difficulty which you have with this is that you seem to like to make a habit of telling others what they said, even when they didn't say it.

The comparison which you drew was that because cars speed at perhaps 41 mph, then somehow any attention which is drawn towards a cyclist going through a red light is discriminatory. I am not surprised that you are now trying to distance yourself from such a ridiculous piece of misplaced logic.

The bottom line is that someone has voiced an opinion regarding what he or she has seen or heard. You have answered that with an fairly aggressive series of counter arguments. Those arguments do not seem to me, nor it seems, to a number of others, to be very good argument. It may well be that you are one of the irresponsible cyclists that this discussion concerns.

Your apparent attitude is certainly something which would be recognised by many who use our roads in a proper way.

I believe, moreover, that it has become clear to you as well that they are not good arguments. You therefore repeat them "ad nauseum" in the hope that, somehow, repetition will improve their quality.

Read the other posts again, try to understand them and try to be a little less inclined to reply in such an aggressive manner.

Best wishes.

St Mark's Road resident

The fact that you regard seeing a car driving the wrong way down Stopford Road as something worthy of note shows that it is an exceptional occurrence.

This may be contrasted with the observation of cyclists riding the wrong way down Stopford Road and indeed many other one way streets- it is so commonplace with bikes that no-one notices (until an accident occurs)

Bill

Janet, If people want to make things up to support a flimsy argument proven wrong, then, yes, everyone should be concerned. It adds nothing intelligent to the discussion.

If someone makes a claim, and that claim is incorrect, proven incorrect, then what is wrong with countering it as I have done? If you agree with the original claim, then provide evidence to deny the counter claim! So far no one has said anything to support the claim that licence plates would reduce crime, let alone provided evidence, whilst eveything (including experiance) shows that it would have zero affect.

I have yet to hear an intelligent, reasonable argument for the introduction of bicycle licence plates, Only the same tired comments that have no baring to real life.

It seems to be one of three arguments, (1)"if they had plates, they wouldn’t break the law"

Proven wrong, as motorists have plates and regularly break the law as recent front page articals have attested.

Or even worse, (2) "if they had plates, I would report them"

Again, clearly wrong, as the police are not currently inundated with reports of motorists (with plates) breaking the law. It is habitual to ignore them, so even if you did report cyclists, you would quickly give up as it became habitual to ignore them too.

More laughable is the (3) “they only break the law because they cannot be identified”

Again, for any motor traffic offences, this clearly does not apply because the number of cyclists is a tiny percentage of licensed road uses that regularly break the law, let alone all motorists.

Apply this to other offences “He only stole because people didn’t know who he was so wouldn’t call the police!” or "He mugged me because I didn’t know him, so couldn’t report him” and it gets clearly silly.

Road Traffic Bill

I must admit to having doubts that Bill did see it. Even if he did, it was probably someone who had broken down or someone who lived on that road and had some problem. The vehicle was probably being driven extremely slowly and carefully, assuming that the event actually occurred. I expect poor Bill had nightmares for weeks afterwards.

You can't really compare a doubtful one-off event with bikes speeding down one way strees every day of the week.

David Plaice

I can't say that I have ever seen a car being driven the wrong way up or down Stopford Road. Anything is possible, I guess.

If Bill is seeking to make a comparison with what cyclists do, however, then he would have to enlarge his vision somewhat. Such a car driver, were he to behave in a similar manner to a cyclist, would not only have to drive the wrong way up Stopford Road, but would do so at speed on the pavement.

Finally, he would go, still on the pavement and travelling in the wrong direction, through the red traffic lights at the end of the road. Colourful hand gestures would greet any other road user who had the temerity to challenge the offending.

No-one would report such a thing, according to Bill

Bill

David, When was the last time you reported a car breaking the law to the police? Even, for example, parked on yellow lines or over zebra crossing zig zags? How about going through red lights? Tailgating?

Perhaps you have never ever seen a car doing anything wrong?

Have you *ever* reported a car to the police?

So put your sarcasm aside, what is your point?

Mine is quite simple, People do not currently report every motor traffic offence they see, so it stands to reason that they would not suddenly start doing it if a few more people got plates.

Recu La Taxe

'Apply this to other offences “He only stole because people didn’t know who he was so wouldn’t call the police!” or “He mugged me because I didn’t know him, so couldn’t report him” and it gets clearly silly'

Hear, hear. Everyone should carry number plates so that they can be identified. I would recommend the style we had on our bikes in my youth. Worn on our backs under our back packs they would be as difficult to read as the cycle tax cards were under our saddlebags and cycling capes. I can see cycling capes making a comeback if number plates are introduced.

Still, it would keep the parish secretaries busy every January, eh!

Janet

Well, I think most of the concern should be with you, Bill, because you seem to be the chap who is telling other people what they have written, even where it is plain that they write no such thing.

In my experience, it is not a tiny minority of cyclists which break the law. It is a very sizeable minority. It may even be becoming a majority, especially in and around St Helier.

It is a very dangerous situation, especially when we are faced with a cyclist moving at speed towards a child in a pushchair, as was reported above. "Concerned" also stated that he saw a series of offence, but was unable to report the perpetrators due to a lack of registration.

I also believe that registration plates are required, along with insurance. I know that this will meet with howls of protests from you. I know that you will go to great lengths and spend a great deal of your time concocting tortuous arguments to show why cyclists don't break the law and why plates are not required.

The fact is, others know what they have seen and they also have their own opinions, to which they are fully entitled. I am afraid that that is something which you are going to have to live with, because it is pretty obvious from the above that you are not being allowed to shout down those with whom you disagree, and long may that continue.

Paul

The point of David's post seem to be self-explanatory, Brill.

Read it again and then you might understand it. I don't think that whether David has reported certain people for certain offences is relevant, although it is clearly something which forms your one and only argument, such as that might be.

David Plaice

The point that I was making was that I have never seen a car being driven the wrong way up or down Stopford Road. Anything is possible, I guess.

If someone on here is seeking to make a comparison with what cyclists do, however, then he would have to enlarge his vision somewhat. Such a car driver, were he to behave in a similar manner to a cyclist, would not only have to drive the wrong way up Stopford Road, but would do so at speed on the pavement.

Finally, he would go, still on the pavement and travelling in the wrong direction, through the red traffic lights at the end of the road. Colourful hand gestures would greet any other road user who had the temerity to challenge the offending.

No-one would report such a thing, according to Bile!

Bill

Janet, If people don’t like their beliefs being broken down and shown to be meaningless, then they shouldn’t discuss them on an open forum.

There is no argument anywhere on these posts to show why cyclists don’t break the law, as that is not true.

No one here has even hinted that they don’t break the law, or even they should be allowed, so why even bring that up?

To claim that someone is unable to report an offence simply due to a lack of registration is silly and childish. This statement is only ever used in regards to cyclists.

No one says they didn’t report a mugging due to lack of registration, or a car hit and run where the plate could not be clearly read, Or even assault or any other offence.

It *can* be reported, but you, along with Concerned and everyone else, including me, choose not to report it. The reason you tell yourself is that you don't because there is no number plate. It’s not a reason, its an excuse.

What excuse do you use to not report cars parked illegally, Me? I know the police wouldn't act on it, so it’s not worth my time to report, I am sure most people would not report road traffic offences for similar reasons (unless someone was actually harmed), but very few would do it because they couldn't identify the perpetrator.

The fact is that there are simply no reasonable argument for the implementation of plates for cyclists.

There are, sadly, plenty of arguments for why plates are not only unnecessary but unrequired.

Recu La Taxe post makes perfect sense.

Janet

Yes, but you expressed concern at the fact that you think that some offences are noticed while others are not. It still seems as though you have a difficulty with seeing the law enforced in a proper way.

What we all see everyday are bikes riding the wrong way though town and committing various other moving traffic offences. This is very dangerous.

A car driving the wrong way up Gloucester Street or down the precinct would be reported very quickly, but a bike cannot be reported for these frequent occurrences at the moment because bikes have no plates.

This is, as you state, something of a problem and registration plates would seem to be the way forward.

You then go on to mention cars speeding on the avenue and suggest that this somehow licenses the very dangerous cycling which is now common. Again, I sympathise with your simplistic view, although a breach of the speeding law by one type of road user cannot legalise the wholesale abuse by another which we agree occurs.

In legal and practical terms, an onlooker cannot secure a conviction against a speeding motorist because some form of expert or electronic corroboration is required under the road traffic law.

On the other hand, a cyclist riding the one way though town or running a red light is something which could be acted upon. A single witness, perhaps supported by closed circuit footage, would be enough to secure a conviction.

You therefore suggest that we report cyclists who break the law by filming them on mobile phones.

Unfortunately there is still the problem of identification. The police will not know who the cyclist is and the cyclist, if he is like many, will deny any wrongdoing.

So, we return to what would appear to be the only answer- registration plates on cycles. In that way, your idea to film the many cyclists who break the law would be effective, although it is clear that an awful lot of filming would be required. No doubt this is something with which you would be pleased to assist.

I hope that the above helps with your continuing difficulty.

Simon

"Recu La Taxe" does indeed make perfect sense. He makes a very good case for cycle registration.

He shows that "personal registration" would be a folly (and doubtless in breach of human rights legislation) but that registration of traffic must be sensible.

Otherwise, we might as well argue that cars and lorries should not have registrartion plates.

Janet

"To claim that someone is unable to report an offence simply due to a lack of registration is silly and childish."

err, No, Bill, it is the reason why an offence cannot be reported.

"This statement is only ever used in regards to cyclists."

Err, Yes! Because every other class of road user has a registration plate. (Rocket science it ain't, Bill)

"No one says they didn’t report a mugging due to lack of registration,"

Err, well, a person committing an assault is not road traffic, is he or she, Bill?

"....or a car hit and run where the plate could not be clearly read..... "

Quite so. Such offences are reported Bill, so why should cycling offences be any different?

Kim

I see that Bill is at it again when he speaks for what other people might think or do. He states:

"It *can* be reported, but you, along with Concerned and everyone else, including me, choose not to report it. The reason you tell yourself is that you don’t because there is no number plate. It’s not a reason, its an excuse."

Bill, of course, can speak for himself and we see that he does so. Vociferously. As for the rest, "Concerned" seems to sum it up when he states above:

Well, clearly, Bill, you know me better than I know myself.

I would indeed have reported this series of road traffic offences had the cyclists had registration plates.

I suggest, politely, that you confine your comments to matters which are within your own knowledge.

Aaron

Kim, Bills comments make perfect sense.

You may indeed report offences if cyclists had registration plates and you have confirmed that you don’t now. Because of plates, apparently

People report all sorts of crimes when the offenders cannot be clearly identified. Which is Bills quite obvious point.

What makes you afraid to report a cyclist? Why is this different to reporting a burglar, a thief or a rapist? Its not really plates, is it.

Reçu La Taxe

I think I'll go along with Bill's understanding of what I said, thanks all the same Simon.

Cathy

Sorry, do we know what Bill's point is again? Isn't he saying that, because a lot of motorists drive at a bit over 40 on a dual carrigeway then it's okay for bikes to ride at pedestrians on pavements and go through red lights and up one-ways?

Chris

Clearly Bill is saying that all cyclists are Jersey people and everyone else are illegal immigrants on benefits, so we should not bother with licensing the moral, outstanding cyclists and ship everyone else out the island.

Bill

“….or a car hit and run where the plate could not be clearly read….. ”

"Quite so. Such offences are reported Bill, so why should cycling offences be any different?"

You tell me Janet!

It is other people here that has been saying that cyclists are different and they choose not to report them because of a lack of plates. Some even go so far to claim that laws are intentionally broken because the perpertatod cannot be identified by the lack of plates.

Now you agree with me that offences should be reported, no matter if there is readable plates present or not.

Finally, someone with some sense.

So perhaps you can explain why people keep saying that they continue tro treat cyclists different and allow them to break the law because they personally cannot identify the person by a licence plate alone.

Its clearly an excuse. What next? Horses should have tax discs?

SG

The issue seems to boil down to one thing- offences by a large number of cylists are, very visibly, on the increase.

The OP gave his own experience and said that things are getting out of hand. Any increase of offending in one sector of road user is a cause for concern and it is necessary to take steps to check it before someone gets seriously injured by one of these riders.

There have been a number of such accident in the Uk where people on pavements have been killed or injured by bikes- we don't want to see that here but the chance of it occurring seems to increase by the day.

Janet

I do agree with you Bill when you say that offences should be reported, whether there are registration plates or not.

The difficulty arises where cyclists, a class of road user with propensity to commit offences, are not registered. This makes it impossible for the perpetrator to be identified.

The situation, as you now acknowledge, is markedly different with regard to motor vehicles, where registration leads to a perpetrator being quickly identified.

The loophole needs to be closed. An effective way to do so would be to register cycles and thereby implement a level playing field.

Simon

Good point "recu". The meaning which you meant to convey differs, however, from what might be read from your words.

As I said, you make a very case for cycle registration, even though you did not intend to do so.

"Old Bill", I don't know much about the magistrates court list or whetever it's called but I do know that, contrary to what Bill or whoever says, we see a lot of motorists in the JEP court reports, but never any cyclists- well, I say never- I did see one cyclist once get fined for riding on a pavement but that was a rare occurrence, once in about 5 years- the chap who got fined must have felt bad considering the thousands of other bikes that do the same thing and much worse but can't be reported.

Kim

@Aaron- read the post again and you will see that I wasn't voicing any opinion, I was merely quoting Concerned when he said,

"Well, clearly, Bill, you know me better than I know myself.

I would indeed have reported this series of road traffic offences had the cyclists had registration plates.

I suggest, politely, that you confine your comments to matters which are within your own knowledge."

We all know what we see and hear. The point is, no-one, not even Billy, can say what someone else saw or heard or what they might or might not have reported. It is all rather silly, Billy.

Kojak

One of the reasons why cyclists aren't registered is because they break the law so much that the police station and then court would become clogged with offenders.

So not registering them creates less work, crime reports etc.

Bill

And I disagree with you Janet, that the lack of registration makes it impossible to identify perpetrators of an offence.

As seen with *any* other offence, on the road or otherwise, Registration is not an issue. So it is not logical to claim it suddenly is.

For example, On my 15 mins walk to work today along an arterial route to St Helier, I saw...

Three drivers with no seatbelt.

Two using mobile phones.

Fifteen parked on yellow lines.

Six Cars driving through red lights.

One cyclist went through red lights.

Three cyclists. Total.

Now, I understand that walking to work is not the preferred method for Jersey people, so my own experience will differ to others. And whilst I only saw one cycling offence but a couple of dozen by motorists, I am sure someone will tell me again the cyclist was far more dangerous than any of the other offenders.

But, My point is that I can identify the cyclist from memory, I cannot remember the number plate of the other offences.

But people on here claim that because the offence happened whilst on a bicycle, I cannot report this because I cannot identify her, simply because she did not have a number plate.

Now, if she had been stealing from a shop, on the other hand, the same people would be saying I would have been able to report it despite the lack of number plate.

It makes it a nonsensical argument that lack of registration makes it impossible to identify perpetrators of an offence.

Janet

Well, I still see a loophole, Bill. We need plates on bikes in my opinion.

What you claim to have seen today is interesting. Of the motorists that you picked on, a number were not committing any moving traffic offence. The one who failed to wear a seatbelt posed no danger to other road users.

The motorists who went through the red light were clearly committing a dangerous offence, as was the cyclist, of course. The latter is something which I hesitate to mention, lest it upsets those of a sensitive disposition.

I too have seen motorists going through red lights. The pattern of offending so far as the motorists are concerned tends to differ from that of the cyclist. Almost invariably, the motorist who breaches the red light is the one who goes through when the light has just turned red. Still an offence and still potentially dangerous.

Cyclists, on the other hand, usually go straight through irrespective of how long the light has been red. Sometimes they combine this offence with the further offence of riding on the pavement.

There is a another issue to be taken into account. During your apparent survey, you claim to have seen the six motorists and the single cyclist breach the read light. We have already seen how the cyclist will generally commit this offence in the more dangerous manner. We now have to consider the number of cars in circulation and compare it with the number of cycles. If one were to look at the percentage of cyclists who are offending, then there can be no doubt that the relative percentage would be far higher than the offence committed by the motorist. Part of the problem is that we cannot determine how many cyclists commit offences, because they are unregistered and cannot therefore be reported or otherwise traced.

I must disagree with you with regard to your analysis of the Don Road occurrence. It seems to me to be highly likely that someone would report a lorry driving against the traffic up Don Road, particularly if he were to do so every morning during the rush hour. I hope that, once you have given the matter some mature thought, you will come to the same conclusion.

Be that as it may, we do know that the gentleman who commits this offence on a daily basis has, hitherto, escaped any form of sanction. This would doubtless be on account of the fact that his vehicle bears no registration plate.

Bill

I am sorry Janet, What would be, under Jersey law, a moving traffic offence? Under UK law, it is a definition of certain laws that only apply to a moving vehicle, as such, only the parked cars would not apply. Seatbelts and mobile phones certainly would.

No such distinction is apparent in the Motor Traffic (Jersey) Law 1935, Revised Edition or indeed, the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956, Revised Edition, unless I have missed something. Can you indicate the section I have missed?

More curiously, when discussing offences, why do you draw a distinction between offences you believe (erroneously, according to the law) posed no danger to other road users and those where motion is required?

Finally, back to the Don Road thought experiment. If a Lorry driver tried going the wrong way during a busy time (Rush hour) it wouldn’t get far, because oncoming vehicles would block its path. So that example is not very good.

Obviously with thought, one would expect that this event (under less busy times) would be reported by people, and also one would expect the police, having witnessed such an offence would do something about it. But that does not involve actual mature thought, only hopeful thinking.

Add to this the factor of basic human psychology and one would realise that the vast majority of people would not bother to report such an offence, Possibly expecting someone else to do it, or simply not being that bothered by it. Human nature being what it is.

Perhaps mature thought is something you should not be suggesting other people use, when you yourselves feel some offences are different than others and some can be ignored, despite the law. Then, it is not mature to expect everyone else to think the same, ignore the same offences as you, but be willing to report the same offences.

Once you include the statement that Tobias made, which the police ignored the offence made by a cyclist and you realise that the issue is not about number plates, and reporting the issue even with plates has no affect.

But it is a fundamental issue within the community and the police. Now, should this offence happen on a daily basis, perhaps Tobias can advise the rough time and, being what the internet is, a Flash Mob could be organised to disrupt this person, film his offence and prevent him leaving the area (Non violently of course) until the police arrive. Community will have to pull together if the enforcement agency is not working.

I am not suggesting vigilantism, but a peaceful protest against the individual that the police will be unable to ignore.

Janet

No need to apologise, Bill. There shold also be no need for you to make personal remarks- if your arguments carry any weight, then you should not feel any need to be silly when you post your comments.

We seem to be making progress in the sense that you are now thinking about what you write. Indeed, there is evidence that you have done some research.

Think again about the offences which you claim to have seen and then consider the relative effects and danger with which each type of offence is associated.

Just to reiterate, if I may:

Almost invariably, the motorist who breaches the red light is the one who goes through when the light has just turned red. Still an offence and still potentially dangerous.

Cyclists, on the other hand, usually go straight through irrespective of how long the light has been red. Sometimes they combine this offence with the further offence of riding on the pavement.

There is a another issue to be taken into account. During your apparent survey, you claim to have seen the six motorists and the single cyclist breach the read light. We have already seen how the cyclist will generally commit this offence in the more dangerous manner. We now have to consider the number of cars in circulation and compare it with the number of cycles. If one were to look at the percentage of cyclists who are offending, then there can be no doubt that the relative percentage would be far higher than the offence committed by the motorist. Part of the problem is that we cannot determine how many cyclists commit offences, because they are unregistered and cannot therefore be reported or otherwise traced.

I must disagree with you with regard to your analysis of the Don Road occurrence. It seems to me to be highly likely that someone would report a lorry driving against the traffic up Don Road, particularly if he were to do so every morning during the rush hour. I hope that, once you have given the matter some mature thought, you will come to the same conclusion.

Be that as it may, we do know that the gentleman who commits this offence on a daily basis has, hitherto, escaped any form of sanction. This would doubtless be on account of the fact that his vehicle bears no registration plate.

Torty Pickle

Interesting idea Bill about organising a posse of intervenors to go and lift any erring cyclists.

There seems to be a couple of problems with this. The first one is that it would be a legal and logistical nightmare which would be bound to end up in all sorts of trouble and possible court proceedings.

A more obvious difficulty would lie with the fact that, given the sheer number of offences committed by cyclists on a continuing basis, your proposed task force would be out all hours and in all weathers. The job would be enormous and all time consuming. Almost as time consuming as the effort which you put in making strange arguments on this forum!

A far better and more equitable way forward would simply be to reintroduce cycle registration.

I Pasdenom

Bill,

"...Registration plates do not stop motorists from breaking the law..."

No, but how many motoring offences have been reported and acted upon where without the registration plate no action could've been taken?

You're being quite arrogantly foolish saying others wouldn't report registration plated cyclists, just because you wouldn't.

I've reported several motoring offences this year; cars/vans/motorcyclists I've included a registration, cyclist I've been unable, whether these reports are acted upon by the useless plods is another question, but which do you think COULD be acted on effectively?

Thinker

Absolutely, Pasednom. The whole point of registration points is to facilitate reporting.

Whether a case acutally proceeds is a matter for the police to decide. But at least registration plates will enable the registered keeper to be identified and followed up.

Whatever others on here say, the possibility of having your number reported will make most people think twice about breaking the law.

Torte Pickle highlights yet another nonsensical Bill approach. I did have a good laugh. I have come to the conclusion that he is a troll to wind up others here as surely no one really could think like that.

Sensible

I was reading Concerned's account of what he saw in the traffic and I am afraid that what he saw is something which we all see every day.

I also read Tobias' account of the chap who rides the wrong way up Don Road every morning. Again, something which is seen all too often.

I also saw Bill's various posts where he thinks that road traffic offences are not reported. He thinks that this means that cyclists should not be registered and he talks about cars committing offences so why bother?

Well, it seems to be a bad argument. According to Tobias, a police car drove past the man riuding up Don Road the wrong way and the officers did nothing. If Bill's argument is correct, then a car or lorry could do the same thing and the police approach would be the same.

I have to differ here. It is pretty obvious that a car or lorry making its way up Don raod against the traffic would be reported pretty quickly. It is also inconceiveable that the occupants of a police car would ignore such a thing.

So, we return, I think, to the point which was originally made by Concerned, namely that a lawless state has been allowed to develop "vis-a-vis" cyclists and that the rot has become advanced to such a stage that some form of identification or registration is fast becoming a necessity.

Bill

Sensible.

I know that very few road traffic offences are reported by the public, except for those that cause injury or involve alcohol.

I do not agree that cyclist registration will prevent cyclists from committing offences, which is what is being claimed.

What I have been saying is that there needs to be an approach that actually does something. In your example, the police should have stopped the cyclist and had a word, but they didn’t. Why didn’t they? Is this not an example of the issue at hand?

Something would have been done if the police had seen a car or lorry, although its a very slim chance that anyone would have reported it if the police was not present, people will tut and complain and say "I would have reported it", but people simply dont actually bother to report it.

So we return to the *actual* point originally made.

People break the law because they cannot be identified.

Making these people identifiable will prevent crime.

It does not require any training in criminal psychology to understand that this is simply not true. People break the law for many reasons, the top three being desperation, some sort of benefit (Mostly financial) or the most common, because they don’t think they will be caught and punished.

As the first point is not true, then why raise the second point? Clearly Identification is not an issue for reporting crime as shown by every other offence committed not by road users, so this can only be an excuse made to avoid reporting cyclists who break the law.

Because licence plates serve a number of functions, they are required on some methods of transportation.

But as shown, they do not prevent or reduce road traffic offences. These continue to happen at an alarming rate by motorists and have become so common place, people are accepting of them.

Clearly, then, it is not logical to assume introducing plates to cyclists for the sole reason to prevent or reduce road traffic offences will work, because it has been shown that, for this reason it will not.

To reduce cyclists breaking the law, there needs to be something introduced that will targets all road users.

Sensible

Bill, I am afraid that many of your complicated and meandering arguments are lost on me. I imagine that you must be spending an enormous amount of time on your campaign. Unfortunately, others here are perhaps busier but it does not mean that they do not have their own view, or that their view is any better or worse than yours for that matter.

I was reading the posts and I have to state again that I agree with Concerned and Tobias. I see these things happening all the time. Nothing can be done because cycles are not registered.

I would be astonished if our police car were to ignore our lorry going the wrong way through town. Sadly, however, we tend to see a different approach wehn it comes to bikes and this, I feel, is because they are not registered.

Letty

Why are cars and buses registered if no-one reports them anyway? What is the point?

Bill

Letty, The point of vehicle registration is not so people can report them if they do something wrong.

Its a register or list of motorised vehicles, heavy machinery easly capable of serious injury, and their owners. The information contains the details of the vehicle and who currently owns it. Remember, motorised vehicles require people to pass a test to use them and they may not use one unless they have the required documentation proving they have passed the test and have been insured by a company. this is a requirement by law.

On the other hand, children use bikes. They do not require a test (although it is recommended) and the law does not require a six year old to display correct insurance when on their bike.

Bikes, of course, can cause injury and even death, when improperly used, like any other device. But this is far less likely than a half ton of metal moving at high speeds.

To introduce registration to bicycles would require a list of every bike on the island and who owns them. Unlike the motorised vehicle list, which is quite clear what should be included because, amongst others, the laws in place relating to age, a bike register would have to be far more complex to determine what should be included.

Should a seven year olds bike be included, when the registration plate might be longer than the bike itself. Who actually owns that bike? The child or the parent? What about a five year olds bike? What about a bike with stabilisers? What about a child’s trike? Kids buggy? Baby’s pram? Where do you draw a line?

Unless we make it illegal to own a bike unless you are over a certain age, have passed a test, and carry the licence. (suddenly turning all children into criminals!) then registration of bicycles is impractical and pointless. The cost would be astronomical and the laws would take longer to instigate than reforming the States!

The only benefit would be to appease the small minority of people, who will not bother reporting cyclists breaking the law simply because they feel that cyclists should have licence plates. (using the excuse that they don’t report because they cannot adequately identify the cyclist in the same manner as a motorist)

Cedric

I don't see how you can argue that registering cycles is pointless and impractical, Bill.

It is not pointless, because it enables those who commit offences to be reported.

It is not impractical, either. Until 1973, it was a requirement and it was managed perfectly well, without computers, don't forget. It would be far more practical now due to the adavnce in technology.

I would disagree as well with your view that it would "appease the small minority of people, who will not bother reporting cyclists breaking the law simply because they feel that cyclists should have licence plates. "

Firstly, it is not appeasement. It is a matter of road safety.

Secondly, I don't think that we are talking about a small minority who report these offences. I think that many people would report them if only the practical means existed to do so in a meaningful way through some form of cycle id.

Finally, it doesn't make sense for you to state that prople don't report bikes "because they feel that they should have plates", neither are they "making excuses that they don't report". Both of these statements sound nonsensical, particularly as I repeat them here.

They also exemplify your apparent habit of telling others what they might or might not do in a given situation or what they might or might not be thinking. None of this adds very much to a mature debate and it makes the tenor of your contribution sound faintly ridiculous!

Phopia

There seems to be an increasing number of cyclists who ignore the laws of the road- a large part of this must come from the fact that we don't have any form of registration system- the fact that these people know that they cannot be reported fosters the irresponsible attitude and so it goes on escalating.

Not only would a form of registration combat this, but it would also, at the same time, enable third party insurance to be implemented. Many pedestrians who use our pavements would be reassured by this, no doubt.

Cycling proficiency courses would alo be a good idea. Perhaps one of the more responsible cycling clubs could provide one at cost price, togther with the helmets that common sense suggests are required.

Thirtysomething

I am impressed that the "Must have license plate" brigade have chosen to ignore the majority of your comment, Bill.

Apparently they do not consider making children into criminals an issue.

Bill

I don’t think that they consider anything past their own perceived problem with reporting crime, they certainly do not consider human nature or the further impact on re-instating a law that was no loger effective for its means into a modern world that has advanced considerably.

They see a means to an end and will not accept any discussion about what that end entails.

Concerned

The reason why people have ignored the argument is because it is a silly, emotive one which, on examination, does not stand up to scrutiny.

At least it makes a change from Bill's "visible person" argument, although it is of equally poor quality.

Bill

Why is making children into criminals a silly, emotive argument, Concrned? Why does it not stand up to scrutiny?

If you expect registration plates on all bycicals, then how are children affected. They ride bikes, so, by your standard would require registration plates.

Please tell me where this does not stand up to scrutiny?

If a childs bike needs registration plates, what about a childs trike? Again, where is this a silly argument?

Motorised vehicals have a raft of laws to state what is road leagal, but non motorised transportation does not.

If you say bikes need registration, what about skateboards? We see people using them in the road all the time, so they must be considered road traffic!

Concerned

We're at it again, aren't we Bill?

Think about what you write.

Would children be criminalised, you ask. No, they would not be criminalised if they obeyed the law. Why do you think that they would not?

Think also about the age of criminal responsibility.

Finally, think also of the new helmet law which has been passed but which awaits implemetation. That law makes the wearing of helmets compulsory for minors under a certain age.

As I have said, your argument is a silly, emotive one. If you had execised some thought, you might have realised wny this is so without my having had to explain it to you.

Samuel

Well, Bill, look at the laws relating to children. They are not responsible until age 10.

There's another point. You mention a child tricycle- this is not designed to be used on the road.

So your argument that kiddies' bikes would have to registered falls flat on its face. Only cycles used on the roads would need to be registered. It's pretty obviosu to most.

Bill

Concerned, I have thought about it, Have you thought beyond reporting people you have a psychological inability to report now?

With the introduction of registration plates to bikes, Children’s bikes and trikes would require plates that are, sometimes, longer than the bike itself. If these bikes are not registered, then the owners would be breaking the law, no matter if used on the road or not, Just like cars.

Criminal responsibility would not come into it as the law for registration applies to objects, not people, and age isn’t an issue. As such, parents (who would actually own the items) would be responsible. This law, of course, would have to extend to skateboards, heelies, roller-skates and scooters (the push variety) and any other mode of non-motorised transportation. Number plates on roller skates? Absurd. But then so would be your proposed law.

But you bring up the law requiring minors to wear helmets, but in the same post you say they are not responsible if they don’t? Then what is the use of this law if it cannot be administered? Seems a rather silly comment.

Perhaps, if you think beyond the "I dont report any crime unless I can see a registration plate" issue you have, you would understand registration plates on bikes have many complications that you do not care to look into.

Bill

Samuel, registration of an object, (in this case, a bike) has no relation to a person’s age. If age is an issue, the object still needs to be registered but to a person within that age group.

Vehicle registration is not limited to the age of the person, but using it is.

But you mention that a Childs tricycle is not designed to be used on the road, but it *is* designed to be used on a pavement. Is this not against the law anyway? Besides, pavements are part of the road and are covered by the same laws.

Then again, both mountain bikes and BMX's are not designed to be used on the road. Do you then claim these be exempt from a bike registration law? How would you (legally) draw a distinction between a mechanism meant for the road and one that is not?

The issue is not as clear cut as Concerned wishes, The law was removed in the 70's for good reason. Those reasons are even more valid now than then.

Samuel

No, you still miss the point.

Children are not legally responsible until age 10.

You mention a child tricycle- this is not designed to be used on the road. It shouldn't be used on the pavement either, now that you mention it. Do you think that bikes should ride on pavements? I don't.

So your argument that kiddies’ bikes would have to registered still falls flat on its face.

Only cycles used on the roads would need to be registered. It’s pretty obvious to most.

Concerned

We're still at it, aren't we, Bill. Hello old chap.

Now we have another silly argument. The skateboard and roller skates argument.

Think about what you write.

Children would not be criminalised if they obeyed the law.

The new helmet law makes the wearing of helmets compulsory for minors under a certain age. The law draftsman's office clearly do not envisage a problems with this.

I must reiterate that your arguments, both with regard to children and now the "skateboard and roller skate" argument" are rather silly.

Please also note that any law regarding the registration of cycles would not be my proposed law. It will be a matter for the States of Jersey.

As has been mentioned before, however, those with authority are more likely to take heed of this elaborate thread, particularly where it is plain that at least one of the persons with whom you seek to argue has a legal background.

The overriding reason for the elongation of this thread lies with the regrettable fact that you became involved at an early stage telling others what they might or might not do and what they might or might not think. Since then, you have felt obliged to defend an increasing number of very poor arguments. You must have a very empty life.

As has been said elsewhere, Bill, if cycle registration does come in, then at least some of the blame must lie with yourself and with others of your ilk.

Road Rage Richard

"Only cycles used on the roads would need to be registered. It’s pretty obvious to most."

So, bicycles used on the pavement would not need to be registered! That’s pretty obvious from your comment!

Isn’t the point of registration to stop cyclists using the pavement?

Philip

Bicycle licensing by-law in Toronto was created in 1935 but, ditched in 1957 and suggested but rejected in 1984, 1992 and 1996

One of the reasons for Toronto not reinstigating its bicycle registration bylaw was the netting of children. The City said “licensing of bicycles [should] be discontinued because it often results in an unconscious contravention of the law at a very tender age; they also emphasize the resulting poor public relations between police officers and children.”

Clearly they understand the issue better than you.

Harry

Thanks, Phil.

We don't really know the road traffic culture in the place that you mention.

It may well be that cyclists respect the law there.

The difficulty here is that we see widespread offending by cyclists and the lack of any regisitration makes it impossible for them to be apprehended.

Thus, your anecdotal analysis based on relative knowledge is not really helpful, I am afraid. Would you have any road traffic reports or material from the years which you cite?

Mike

The point, I believe, is that registration enables those who commit road traffic offences to be traced when they are reported.

Letty

No, I disagree with you there Bill. The point of registration is so that those who commit offences can be reported.

Bill

Unfortunately, You may believe that to be true, Letty, But it does not make it so.

Simply put, those who commit offences are not, by any means, automatically the person who the vehicle is registered under.

As such the reason for licence plates cannot be to report those who commit offences.

The point is to be able to identify the registered owner of the vehicle.

This is confirmed by the many posters here who believe criminals only break the law because they cannot be identified. No offences would happen if a licence plate was present, apparently.

Letty

I do believe it to be true, Bill. In much the same way as you believe that registration plates on bikes serve no purpose, but that doesn't make it true.

I like your changing arguments. The registration system is fine for identifying a driver through the registered keeper. It works for cars, so it follows that it would work for bicycles.

Have you thought that the reason why many posters here think that cyclists break the law because they cannot be identified might actually be true?

Reçu La Taxe

I think that this issue is as thorny as dog licences. We had both of these before and they were discontinued. Both were an inconvenience and didn't really achieve anything. There were, and still are, valid reasons for both but these do not outweigh the lack of practicality and the manifest lack of achievement by either.

All the cycle tax achieved was that I and others still remember what was written on the card other than the number.

You can bet your bottom dollar that if either come back they won't be as cheap as before and may also start the ball rolling on compulsory insurance and other issues. With Jersey looking for growth industries to replace finance, be careful what you are asking for.

Cycle usage ranges from children's recreation to serious commuting. Some people own several bikes. I have about four useable ones gathering dust. I certainly don't need to walk into having to register them all. A numbered tabard for the rider would make more sense as it also would for horse riders and surfers but let's not go there without considering where else it will lead. With cycling sorted out we will need a new whipping boy, pedestrians? Pram pushers?

Unless bikes carry a much larger easier to read number than the previous card inserts they will not be readable.

Just remember that other than a few racing bikes and kid's choppers, bikes nearly became extinct in the 1970s. Cycle shops almost disappeared. Schools did away with bike sheds (and their attendant problems). It was only the design initiative of the muti geared mountain bike that boosted interest to present day levels.

The fashion for cycling could swing back the other way. After all, bikes are not a pleasant mode of transport in the rain and not as much of a status symbol as a teutonic (including Range Rover) 4x4.

With regard to dealing with cycling offences, the police in central London have techniques for dealing with cavalier and illegal cycling behaviour which do not rely on the cyclists having number plates, just on the police being suitably mobile and able to record evidence.

Now, where were we on helmet wearing?

Concerned

You make a very good series of comments, there Recu. I tend to agree with what you say. The one thing which I would not agree with is the part where you suggest that a cyclist is a whipping boy. I respect your view in that regard, however and would defend it if necessary.

As I stated at the beginning, I am a cyclist as well as a motorist. I very much hope that cycle registration does not become necessary but clearly, there is a problem which is going to have to be addressed.

The interesting thing about the above series of messages arises from the fact that my initial post simply recited an experience and a particular point of view. There the matter might have rested, as perhaps it should. At that stage, anyone within a relevant Department of the States of Jersey would probably not have noticed had he or she cast an eye on this column as might be expected to occur from time to time.

Unfortunately, however, the perhaps slightly aggressive and certainly inflammatory response from the one calling himself Bill has lead to an effective escalation of the thread and to the further ventilation of the matter.

Given the clear aim of "Bill" to avoid the registration of cyclists, it is almost amusing to note that his industrious, prolific and certainly time-consuming activities have made the matter very conspicuous indeed and may well serve to bring about the very result that he is so keen to avoid.

In other words, if a member of a department had not noticed the matter before, then he or she certainly will now, Thanks largely to the efforts of "Bill".

Overpopulated

Incorrect, in Jersey all dogs need a licence, renewable annually at the Parish Hall.

We need more police presence on the roads, too much speeding and really bad driving by all classes of drivers from cyclists to drivers of the huge tractors

puffin

Since when did you not need dog licenses?

Puppywatcher

Aha, but dog licences does not stop dogs crapping everywhere or running around the beach off a lead when they are not supposed to, or causing chaos in Gorey.....

WE NEED DOG NUMBER PLATES VISABLE ON ALL DOGS

Otherwise, how could we report these serious and dangerous offences?

Reçu La Taxe

I stand corrected on dog licences. Haven't owned a dog for years and naturally assumed we had gone the way of the UK. If they are still in force, what exactly do we get in return apart from some money in the parish kitty?

Concerned, the cyclists appear to be getting a good whipping on here, be they boys or girls!

Cathy

I think that Puppywatcher has a point here. Dog identification tags are not visible at all, which gives rise to problems if the situation which he describes does arise.

He is correct to draw the partial analogy here in the sense that the owner of a dog who allows his or her animal to cause mayhem on a beach or elsewhere may do so with impunity in much the same way as the cyclist who rides through the red traffic light or up the one-way street.

Thinker

Concerned and the ladies on here hit the nail on the head.

Cycle registration would serve to identify law breakers both to police and the public, and enable action to be taken.

It is unfortunate that so many cyclists choose now to break the law. I can remember being stopped as a child by a police officer for riding on the pavement - and I was going very slowly unlike the lunatics of today. The next time (didn't stop me), I cycled off as fast as I could as I knew there was no way he'd be able to report me unless he physically grabbed me.

Until there is a mechanism in place to properly identify those who break the law, the madness and danger will continue.

ps what about speeding cyclists in green lanes and the Blinerie?

Reçu La Taxe

'Cycle registration would serve to identify law breakers both to police and the public, and enable action to be taken'

Only if it is large enough to be easily read. Does anyone think that will be likely?

Concerned

I thought that. My thinking was perhaps some kind of large, flexible plate that could be placed along the crossbar or across the rear of the vehicle.

Failing that, the registration scheme could be combined with the incoming helmet requirement and the numnber written on each side of the helmet.

It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a start. As we know, cycles were registered until 1973. Mopeds and very small motorcyles remain so and the there does not seem to have been any diificulty with the size or legibility of the plates on these small machines.

Penny

A reasonable point there, Recu.

The law draftsman will obviously be aware of the problem which you identify. She will no doubt be aware of provisions annexed to the Road Trffic Law which prescribe the size of the number plate and the configuration of numerals on the registration plates which are presently affixed to motor vehicles of all sizes.

No doubt, as the new law progresses through the usual stages, the practical difficulties which you have kindly pointed out will be dealt with.

Thinker

Indeed Penny. I thought Recu would have realised that was obvious.

I recall the old cycle plates have a very visible number even at a distance.

I am sure the law draftsman would consider this, as they have with car number plates.

Reçu La Taxe

It worries me, Thinker and Penny, that this might actually get as far as the law draughtsmen/women.

If we are not careful an unstoppable juggernaut will be set in motion, ending up with a massive bureaucracy (which I'm sure our worthy taxpayers would be up in arms about). Fine, if we are still looking for other ways of employing people when finance goes elsewhere. Of course, it could be privatised but be careful what you wish for, the cost of living index will go through the roof!

Thinker, my recollection of the previous cards (only becoming plates by virtue of the holder) was that they were not easy to read unless either the cycle was stationary or being closely followed. My eyesight has always been good but those bike numbers were nothing like as readable as car numbers. My memory is also good, that's how I remember that the cards were as much an annually numbered receipt for tax as being a means of identification.

To make them useful, the law draughtspersons would have to come up with at least the size of an Italian motorcycle number plate which, on a push bike would take up a lot of space. Which way would you want it facing, forwards, backwards, sideways or all of them? Why not a cube on the handlebars and another on the carrier?

The previous cycle number holder was normally fitted below the saddle, bolted into the 'A' formed by the top of the rear stays. Anyone with a saddlebag or a loaded rear carrier could obscure it. I never heard of a prosecution or even a parish hall ticking off for not displaying it visibly.

I would urge all you plating enthusiasts to consider the erosion of our valuable freedoms (isn't that a popular cry in Haro land?). Horse riders be warned, you will be next for licence plates. Insurance will be next, is that going to encourage casual cycling for health, play and recreation?

This campaign is a distraction away from the prevailing lack of focus by the police on cracking down on bad cycling habits. Does anyone believe that the police couldn't catch the cyclists now if they could really be bothered to? Will they be any more bothered if the cyclists had numbers?

Concerned

I quite agree, Recu. Had my initial post been allowed to rest, then the matter would have remained there.

Unfortunately, the actions of one correspondent in particular has escalated the discussion to a point where it probably won't be ignored by those in authority who read these columns.

Penny

Thanks Rucu.

Just to clarify, you ask where "we" might want the plates. I don't really know to whom you refer, but I personally would not like to see plates on cycles. I don't believe that anyone is an "enthusiast" of registration, they are more likely to be enthusiastic about seeing cyclists taking responsibilty for themselves on the public highway.

Sadly however, registration seems like the only way to control a large minority of cyclists who ignore the law.

The purpose of my comment was to address your query, that query being related to the size and configuration of cycle plates. I am glad to see that I managed to answer your question to some extent, even if the content of my post with regard to the progression a law might have been alarming.

Oh Really

allot of poorly concocted arguments here, usual scaremongering and misquoting. I recall similar arguments with seat belts in cars (they dont work, they'll break your neck etc). Firstly, helmets make a fall safer, there can be no argument about this; our roads are busier and ergo, like it or not, riding sensibly or stupidly we will have more accidents, its just going to happen. I really dont get why we cant all just wear a helmet, it really isn't that hard, cant we just be grown up and put the thing on, its just a helmet, its nothing about human rights or who's safer than who. Just put it on, you'll look a whole lot more silly with your brains hanging out on the pavement.

R. Williams

A physiotherapist of my acquaintance who cycles daily, refuses to wear a helmet because of the number of neck injuries he has treated due to helmets causing twisting on impact. The design of most helmets at present available, is not ideal.

Strickland

If the loud and rude riders would only look where they are going and not force pedestrians to walk in the middle of the road while they mass on a corner or come within kissing distance whilst they wiz by, two or three a breast. Just because you can doesn't mean you have to !

I agree with others that the speed of drivers contributes to the accidents and incidents, but riders are becoming like pack animals with the manners to match. Personally, I was saved of a possible head injury by my helmet, an accident that only involved myself a slippery bridge and a nasty spike. I despised wearing this ugly helmet, giving me the feeling of not being viable or safe,only did so for my daughter I and so glad I did !

Eco Warrior

My husband came off his bike the other day and, if it had not been for his helmet, he would not just have walked away with grazed arms and legs. I would be visiting him in hospital or worse which does not bear thinking about. Not really interested in the pros and cons because I know that, for us, the pros are the only thing that works.

john

Complete waste of time making it law.

As with other minor crimes it will never be enforced like keeping dogs on a lead and littering.I doubt if any one has been charged with these crimes yet it is a daily occurrence.Just more money for the lawyers drafting it up.Law and order in Jersey has gone out the window,i don't think they deserve a new police station.

cyclingwear

htsrhtif any one has been charged with these crimes yet it is a daily occurrence.Just more money for the lawyers drafting it up

cyclingwear

and littering.I doubt if any one has been charged with these crimes yet it is a daily occurrence.Just more money for the lawyers drafting it up

The Thinker

At present the States have passed legislation to make it compulsory for young people to wear helmets. I am given to understanding that there are significant problems with this proposed law. Firstly the 'minimum' age - the age of criminal responsibility is set at 10 years of age, however certain piece of legislation contain an age element - eg the wearing of seat belts. As such consideration is being given to whether the law should be set at 10 or 12 or perhaps 14 years of age. At the other end is the issue of when someone becomes an adult. Should it be set at 18 or would 16 years be better. Taken to both extremes you might have a piece of legislation that only affects a two year age group - something that is clearly nonsensical. So although the States have passed something in principal there are some really difficulties is getting it on the statute books. Hence I feel this 11th hour suggestion at a complete ban covering all ages.

Evidence has shown that year on year more people are wearing helmets - you'd be daft not to protect your head. Legislation that cannot be effectively upheld is poor legislation. We see on a daily basis that the Police are unable to adequately police the existing laws regarding cyclists, adding further pieces of legislation will not help the issue.

At the end of the day surely it should be down to the individual to decide, in the same way as an individual goes for a swim, crosses the road, cuts up vegetables with a sharp knife. Life can be dangerous we must all take responsibility to manage and reduce the risks. Whatever happens I will continue to wear my helmet whenever I am out on my bike.

Ashley

I don't want to wear a helmet. It's no one's business if I harm myself while riding my bike. It's my head. I'd like to protect it as I see fit.

All this will do is turn people of cycling. I wish people would stop trying to make so many decisions for everyone else.

Daniel

It seems like a war on here – Why?

Simple Sid and people like him have a serious attitude problem. Some cyclists do stupid things so do some motorists. But the vitriol on here is amazing. Get it in perspective please. The thing is we DO NOT NOTICE people behaving correctly, we DO NOTICE when they behave wrongly, as in cyclists jumping red lights and motorists talking into their mobiles. Few do either, but we NOTICE them.

For example, “they ride without lights” – well some do. I took the trouble to do a count some years ago of all cyclists when the days were shorter, and found that it was 96%

who had lights.

If the aim is better road safety, specifically fewer KSI’s (Killed and serious injury) then for God’s sake let us base our actions on EVIDENCE. TheMoaningOldBugger at #7 rightly says: “before every Tom Dick and Harry jump on the band wagon calling for hats lets see who was at fault in both cases”

I got through the States a requirement that TTS do a proper analysis of the CAUSES of road accidents in Jersey and then bring a reasoned target for road traffic accident reduction to the States within a year. We are still waiting. But that is the correct way to go, if we are serious about the problem instead of the easy and useless “quick fix” of cycle helmet compulsion.

Incidentally I find it alarming to hear how many helmet wearers seem to say – ‘I wear one and LOOK it saved my life’. Why and how did they get into an accident situation?

Accidents do not just “happen”, as another commenter on here said. Again, let us have some evidence.

If it is a war then we need “confidence – building measures" ON BOTH SIDES, including a points system for motorists speeding, talking on their mobiles, etc. sanctions for cyclists causing danger or anxiety to others, and properly considered road safety measures. In other words a proper policy to reduce all accidents.

I see no sign of this happening – and yet this is what we all should be pressing for.

En defaut in spirit

You must have a lot of time on your hands, Daniel. Some count sheep in order to go to sleep while you, it seems, count cyclists.

All very well, provided that it wasn't happening on taxpayers time!

Hatty

You might perceive a conflict, Daniel, but that may say more about the way you see the matter more than anything else.

Much of the difficulty arises because the law is not enforced when it comes to cyclists. The problem is very obvious and extremely visible to all other classes of raod user.

I am surprised and disappointed to see that you single out "Simple Sid" for your criticism- the fact that you do again points to the conflict which you identify as being something within your own mind rather than anything else.

Those who speak, like you do, of a serious attitude problem in others are often those who need to examine their own attitudes a little more closely.

We all see cyclists committing serious road traffic offences, yet you seem to have a difficulty with people stating that fact. One pauses to wonder why. It would be in the interest of all that the road traffic laws be enforced, particularly now that, inevitable, serious accidents have begun to occur.

It is difficult to see how any right-thinking person could disagree with that.

Alex

Maybe A&E should decide not to treat cyclists with head injuries, since they don't appear to be bothered about protecting themselves? As an added bonus it could save our overburdened health service a significant amount of money.

Martin

Another cyclist has died on the roads today.

What prospect of a report from which any appropriate lessons can be learnt?

Grumpy Old Woman

Bill, this may have been raised in one of the numerous comments above but unfortunately I don't have the time to read through the whole thread - I work you see and from the times of your comments you either don't, or alternatively if you do, then you should be sacked for NOT working in work time!

Anyway my point is - accepting for a minute that as you claim that it is possible for a miscreant cyclist to be reported to the police without some form of ID such as a license/registration number then how do you suppose a visit to the police station would go? ...

Me: "Hello officer, I'd like to report someone for cycling through a red light this morning"

Police: "Very well, can you give me some details of the incident that you observed?

Me: "It was a male cyclist. He was coming down Mont Millais at about 8.30am and I saw him cycle straight through a red traffic light at the bottom of the hill and proceed down Colomberie"

Police: "Can you identify the cyclist?

Me: Well he was wearing a red jumper and black trousers"

Do you honestly think that there would be a point?

Harry

I believe that what you speak of here is the "visible driver" argument which has been put by Bill. It is the latest in a long line of ususual and creative arguments that he has been spending a great deal of time explaining in the foregoing.

I am fascinated by this line of thought and I hope that we might hear more from Bill. The "visible driver" argument is something which, I sure, he will be keen to spend many more hours developing and eventually elucidating.

Penny

Bill writes:

"This, actually means that they are more easily identified than other offences that people may commit because the additional information available. Colour, make, style of bike etc. Identifying a cyclist committing an offence is far easier than identifying the person responsible for a motor vehicle offence."

I can't follows this, Bill. How likely would it be that someone would read the manufacturer's label on a bicycle as its rider committed an offence? How likely as well if the person who makes the complaint is having to take evasive action, as many pedestrians do when confronted by a cyclist on a pavement.

Finally, a person who reports an unregistered cyclist on the evidence which you mention would in all likelihood be reliant on your "visible person" criteria. What you miss here is that such an identification, perhaps made while the cyclist commits the offence while travelling at speed, would be what the police and the courts term a "fleeting glimpse" identification. As such, it would be subject to the Turnball guidelines, following the case of R-v-Turnball 1976, 63 Cr App R 132. and thus be treated with caution.

None of this, of course, applies to registration plates, which have been shown to be an effective tool in identifying those who breach the raod traffic laws of our island and elsewhere.

Din Toh

Bill sounds like a troll. Can't see logic and flits from one argument to another as each one gets knocked down.

Bill

Apparently I'm the troll, Yet people are claiming that cars should not be registered because I think registration of bikes would not prevent crime. Thats very adult.

I havent "flit" between arguments as none of them has been "knocked down". The real trolls have twiseted comments to evoke a response, such as this "visable driver argument" that people have made up.

Quite simply, people can report crimes. To say they cannot is foolish, yet people have used the "visable driver argument" as a reason why they do not report crime. This isnt "knocking down" my argument, its pathetic.

Registration plates do not prevent crime. Again, given the amount of crime in registered vehicals, it would only be a fool who thinks registration of bycicals would prevent crime on them.

But, hey, it dosent stop the foolish and the trolls from jumping on the bandwagon, does it.

Visible Person

I don't think that you are a troll, Bill. I believe that are someone, with time on his hands, who has recited an argument and feels compelled to keep repeating it. Unfortunately, you seem to have become a little out of your depth, although some of the arguments that have produced are interesting and entertaining in equal measure.

Donald

Lol @ grumpy old woman.

Point well made. Bill, take note

Bill

Grumpy Old Woman. Thank you for your response. Shift work sometimes affects my free time.

Thank you again for returning to the original issue, that “cyclists cannot be reported for committing an offence”. Something people are claiming is true. Thank goodness, someone who is willing to think about the subject can confirm that the crime *can* be reported.

You ask me, Is there a point in reporting someone who commits a crime? Then, obviously, I do see a point. If people see a crime, then they should report it, and who could argue with that?

If someone refuses to report a crime, then, surely, the problem not the actual crime itself, but the society that the crime occurs in.

Or perhaps the public opinion of the police and their willingness to act on the information. Either way, this would be the issue, “What use is reporting the crime?” instead of “I cannot report this crime”

The problem is that people do not report road traffic offences.

There, of course, are exceptions. If it involves someone being harmed (financially or physically) or it involves alcohol. and very rarely simply an offence. People do not report cars going down one way streets, on yellow lines or speeding . These offences are seen by police on patrol and this results in them appearing at the Parish hall or before the magistrates. This includes both offences committed by cyclists and registered motor vehicles.

For some reason, people don’t bother to report road traffic offences, and as we have seen in some of the above posts, some people actually feel that they have the power to determine the severity of offences, so can ignore some, but, strangely, choose not to report those they feel are more serious. Others feel that because police actually see the offences happening, this somehow shows that offences are being reported by the public.

But back to your point. One would expect the officer to take down the details for you. With the number of CCTV about, one would hope that the cyclist could be identified further from the description should it be around St Helier. But that is if the police want to take it further than just writing up your report.

In the same respect, how different would it have been if the crime was one that was not involving a cycle.

To use your comments.

Me: “Hello officer, I’d like to report someone for stealing my handbag this morning”

Police: “Very well, can you give me some details of the incident that you observed?

Me: “It was a male, He was coming down King Street at about 8.30am and he ran past me outside M&S grabbing my bag. He then ran towards Sand Street”

Police: “Can you identify the person?

Me: Well he was wearing a red jumper and black trousers”

Do you honestly think that there would be a point? Of course you would. But where is the difference? The argument seems to be “because it involves a bicycle, I cannot report it!” where its more accurate to say “because it involves a bicycle, I cannot be bothered to report it!”

Now, how about if it was a car?

Me: “Hello officer, I’d like to report someone for driving through a red light this morning”

Police: “Very well, can you give me some details of the incident that you observed?

Me: “It was a motorist, He, or possibly, she, was coming down Mont Millais at about 8.30am and I saw him or her drive straight through a red traffic light at the bottom of the hill and proceed down Colomberie”

Police: “Can you identify the vehicle?

Me: Well it was registered as J12345"

Would that be all that was asked? Or would there be more questions. Can you describe the driver? What colour was the vehicle, what type? Make? Model? People are demanding that cyclists are treated the same as motorists, so reports would have to include the make and model of cycle to be of any use.

The point would be twofold.

One, The crime *can* be reported.

Two, number plates does not allow for identification of the person responsible for the offence.

Yet, I am sure people will continue to disagree, perhaps with the pathetic “Visible driver” argument people have made up in response to the first point. But the statement remains, Crime can be reported.

Concerned

Bill, you must have an awful lot of time on your hands. You're at it again, aren't you?

Your very long post shows that you have now combined your "visible person" argument withe your "pedestrians bearing number plates" argument.

It has been explained to you above that pedestrians are not road traffic. Road traffic is a term which relates to the use of a vehicle on a public highway. A body of laws and regulations applies to road traffic, hence the need for road traffic, whether driven by a visible person or otherwise, to be identifiable through registration.

I hope that this helps.

Innes sing-a-solo

Bill, you say:

"People are demanding that cyclists are treated the same as motorists, so reports would have to include the make and model of cycle to be of any use."

Not really, Bill. Most cars are identifiable by make quite easily. If the shape is not recognisable, then there is usually a badge on the rear of the car.

Bicycles are not so identifiable, unless you happen to be looking at the headstock of the machine or possibly the crossbar. How likely would this be if you are rushing out of the way on a pavement or one way street as a cyclist approaches? Not very likely, I hope you will agree.

Think also about your argument. A person goes to make a report. In the case of a car, which is registered of course, he will be able to state that a Ford Transit, for example, was the vehicle in question. He might even be able to provide a registration number. Imagine that.

What of the cycle? If the person is very lucky, he will have noted the make. He might tell the officer that the bike was a Carlton 18 speed with twin chainset and shimano shifters, not forgetting the centre pull, cantilever alloy brakes.

What will the officer do with this information? Does the police station have a database of Carlton 18 speed bicyles with twin chainset and shimano shifters? No, it does not.

On your argument, it is therefore plain that registering cyles is of more relevance than registering motor vehicles.

The police will keep records of Ford Transit vans, but it will not have a record of Carlton 18 speed bicyles with twin chainset and shimano shifters.

Registering cycles would therefore seem to be the only sensible option.

Poppy

Bill, you say that "people will continue to disagree, perhaps with the pathetic “Visible driver” argument people have made up in response to the first point".

May I just pick you up on that for a moment, please?

The "visible driver" argument is indeed lacking, as you state. You also say, however that other commentators have made up this argument.

This is not correct, Bill.

You are the originator of the "visible person argument". Your initial words on the matter, as set out above, are as follows:

..."It is factitious to claim they cannot because of a lack of number plates, so this is not a logical statement.

Being able to identify the owner of a cycle would not alleviate this problem as the offence is caused by the visibly identifiable rider; so again, this is not a logical statement.

On the other hand, a fully enclosed metal shell of a car makes identification of the driver much harder....."

So, there it is. A very silly argument indeed. It is good to see that you no longer associate yourself with such a dreadful line of thought.

Bill

Poppy, Other people have made up this argument.

I simply stated, which you have chosen to only include part of that message, that the lack of number plates does not prevent people from reporting a crime. I gave examples of how the *person* responsible for the offence can be identified and explained that such identification, whilst reasonable for many crimes, is not often clear due to the visually obstructive nature of a motor vehicle.

I did not claim that a car, with a visible driver does not need number plates.

The visible diver argument is a very silly argument, one that other people are using.

Poppy

Yes Bill you said it, the "visible person" argument is a very silly one. I am glad that we have settled that.

Now perhaps we won't have people arguing that cyclists don't need plates because the rider can be seen and identified. It is a ridiculous idea.

The "pedestrians bearing number plates" argument is of equally silly gravitas.

Keith

Glad you see it now Bill.

It is not of any relevance at all, because the fleeting glimpse identification of a cyclist that you envisage would not be admissible as evidence.

Slinky Sandra

I could not understand the "visible person" argument, either. Now that Bill has abandoned it, I can go and put the number plates back on my convertible. I had better drive carefully now that I can be identified. Pity the cyclists don't have to! :)

Bill

Thanks Keith, so you agree that the fleeting glimpse identification of a cyclists registration plate that you envisage would not be admissible as evidence either.

Keith

No, the fleeting glimpse guidelines only applies to personal identification, Bill, which is why your visible person argument was such a failure.

Registration plate identification is another matter and is subject to admission without corroboration.

I hope this helps you.

Rog

I think the point is that Bill's visible person argument fails as does the fleeting glimpse approach.

A proper form of cycle registration would negate all this nonsense, so what is the issue.

Hilary

Registration enables cyclist to be reported. This alone would act to reduce some of the frequent and extremely dangerous offences that cyclists commit on a daily basis.

We don't seem to have any evidence to support the argument that registration does not act to reduce the frequent and extremely dangerous offences that cyclists commit on a daily basi.

On the contrary, it is pretty obvious to most that registration would act to reduce offending cyclists- if thye knew that they could be identified, then they would surely think twice.

Bizarre

Reducing the Island speed limit will not stop cyclists breaking the speed limit or cycling dangerously. At least registration plates will enable offenders to be identified.

As a cyclist myself I am disgusted at the lack of respect for the law when I see another cyclist fly past me at speed, weaving in and out of traffic and through red lights. Not to mention when I am driving a car, to be faced with cyclists coming towards me when I am going along a one way street. Seale street, Sand street, Grosvernor St, Charing Cross to mention a few instances where I have had to come to an abrupt stop.

I can almost certainly saw that if I saw any method of transport coming towards me down a one way street, be it a cycle, car or combine harvester, I would report it. If of course there was a proper mechanism to identify them.

Let's hope that the many cyclists contributing to this column who do break the law have some internal reflection about their behaviour and start to respect society and its values

Thirtysomething

Bizarre, I also cycle, and I am fed up with fellow cyclists lack of respect for the law. It annoys other road users who have taken their frustration out on me, even though I do obey the law.

But, I cannot agree that registration plates are the answer. Despite how Bill puts forth his comments, he has disputed a number of spurious claims about registration plates, One that, unfortunately, you also believe.

Registration plates do not identify offenders.

Registration plates identify the vehicle and the register (who the public do not have free access to) displays who is the owner of that vehicle. The registered owner may have no relation to the person actually in control of the vehicle and who is responsible for committing those offences. So to believe one is automatically the other is a stretch of the imagination.

This is why, when reporting a motor traffic offence or accident, you are asked by the police “Did you see who was driving”

Thinker

Concerned's comments meet with the approval of many on here, and with me.

It seems quite clear that without the ability to utilise a registration mark, a prosecution will almost undoubtedly fail. A registration make together with a description is a very powerful assets in pursuing an offence.

Clearly 30-odd is unfamiliar with the legal requirements to disclose a driver of a vehicle, and I am sure the law draftsman will also consider this as part of a suitable piece of legislation when drafting the law around cycle plates.

30-odd appears to have logic as defective as Bills if he believe that registration plates will provide no purpose. Perhaps we should remove the need for car registration plates as there really is no point for them either.

Janet

I don't think that Bill has disputed any spurious claims about cycle plates, thirty something.

Bill has clearly disputed every point that has been put in favour of bringing back registration, together with quite a few other points just for the sake of it, but none of the arguments that he has disputed have been spurious arguments.

In point of fact, most, if not all, of the arguments that Bill has made have been rather lacking, comical even. I still chuckle when I think of his "visible person" argument, for example, which I note is something to which you unfortunately subscribe.

It would seem from your unquestioning acceptance of this concept that you have not read the comments above regarding fleeting glimpse identification and the way in which this is dealt with by the courts. You will see, if you wish to conduct the necessary research, that such evidence, if uncorroborated by a registration plate or some other factor, is likely to be ruled inadmissible.

If you are anything like Bill (or even the same person), I expect that you will shortly tell us how, for some reason known only to yourself, this rule of evidence wouldn’t apply and that everyone will be able to tell if an errant cyclists has big ears, a big nose, green hair or some other distinguishing feature that can be made out in half-light or when the person who reports the offence is taking emergency evasive action.

You also become confused when you speak of the driver and the registered keeper of a vehicle. A registered keeper, if different to the driver, is obliged to give details of the driver where an offence is committed. This is therefore another argument which is raised, but which can quickly be dismissed.

What is perfectly clear is that you and Bill, who may well be the same person posting under different names, view cycle registration as something which serves no purpose either as a registration medium or as a means by which road traffic crime can be controlled and detected.

On that reasoning alone, one might imagine that you would support the immediate abolition of any form of registration for any class of road traffic.

Thirtysomething

Wow, I regret even commenting, It seems some people are so obsessed that they are right, they refuse to believe someone else may have a different opinion, let alone two people. To make it clear, I am not Bill.

Thinker, My logic is not defective, I never said registration plates provide no purpose, I certainly did not mention that they should be removed from cars. Perhaps you do not like to see other people disagreeing with your views so you seek to belittle them.

I feel my post was quite clear that plates do not identify offenders. How is this defective logic. Even Janet agrees below that this is true.

Janet, I never mentioned this "Visible person" argument. You seem to be in the same boat as Thinker and seem to make things up about someone who may have a different opinion than yours. Is that why you accuse people who disagree with you of wanting abolition of registration for road traffic? Something that has not been mentioned other than by the "I cant report crime without a licence plate" crowd.

Perhaps, if you want to respond to my comment, actually refer to the contents instead of some random statement that you think I would say, if only I would post it for you.

Careful rider

Lol at thirty. Regrets commenting but then carries on again:)

It does seem odd to me to read your post. Whilst the name of the person would not be apparent from the cycle plate, the police can contact the owner and firstly establish if the description matches the owner, but if it was someone else riding, then the owner would (if the law is drafted properly), require the owner to provide the details of the rider.

The use of a registration plate on motor vehicles has many purposes, but one of the benefits of having this is that the registered keeper can be contacted to trace a driver. Otherwise anyone could drive a car without fear of redress. And it seems to me to this lack of fear and culpability that makes morons behave as morons on the road.

Hilary

I don't follow your logic here, thirty something.

Unless I am mistaken, you do not support the registration of cycles. This must, surely, mean that you do not believe that the registration of cyclists would serve any useful purpose.

You then state that you do not support the deregistration of other classes of road traffic. You certainly did not mention that they should be removed from cars.

You state that registration plates do not identify offenders. You write that Janet supports this view, even though it is plain that she does not.

Those who have responded to your comments have naturally concluded that you would support the removal of number plates from all classes of road traffic. The logic behind this conclusion arises from your effective argument that plates serve no purpose on cycles. Logic must dictate that, if this is true, then plates must serve no purpose on any other vehicle.

The true position, however, seems to be that you are saying that registration serves no purpose on bicycles, but that it does serve a purpose on other vehicles. Perhaps when you read this analysis you will see why your comments have been quickly questioned.

You go on to distance yourself from Bill's "visible person" argument. While it is true that you do not use those actual words, it is clear from the last words of your post that this is so.

You write, "This is why, when reporting a motor traffic offence or accident, you are asked by the police “Did you see who was driving”"

Quite apart from the fact that you clearly do have regard to the "visible person" argument, your above statement is incorrect.

When a road traffic offence is committed, the first question which an officer is likely to ask is, "did you see the registration?" It would be odd indeed if an officer were to neglect this question and ask a complainant if the driver were visible, particularly if the officer had been briefed, as indeed he or she should have been, on the guidelines set out in R-vTurnbull [1976].

Janet

Thirtysomthing, you say "Perhaps, if you want to respond to my comment, actually refer to the contents instead of some random statement that you think I would say, if only I would post it for you."

This does not make any sense, either in terms of english language, or in terms of any discernible argument, whatever that might be. You are not posting comments for others; you should be posting them on your own account. This is part of taking responsibility for one's actions. The principle is the same whether you are cycling on a public highway or whether you are participating in an open forum.

You seem to think that others are saying that you have written things that you have not written. Oddly, you go on to do this yourself, when you falsely claim "I feel my post was quite clear that plates do not identify offenders. How is this defective logic. Even Janet agrees below that this is true."

I am afraid that I do not agree it to be true. On the contrary. Registration plates do generally identify offenders, which is precisely the reason why so many people would appear to support their reintroduction to cyclists.

Thirtysomething

Hilary, Yes, you are mistaken.

You state that someone who does not agree with registration of bicycles means they support the removal of number plates from all classes of road traffic. This is just being childish.

Do you also suggest that anyone who disagrees with whale hunting must support that meat should be removed from the menu of all nations? Or perhaps anyone who does not like the taste of Brussels sprouts means they support the execution of civilians during the second world war?

No, Clearly that’s nonsense, so why suggest it unless you do not want to get involved in an adult discussion

As for this nonsense about visible person, How this has become used as a weapon against anyone disagreeing, is beyond me. Can you not come up with a rational argument?

Vegan

I would like to say I am very much for registration plates. And brussel sprouts.

Although I can't quite see how a brussel sprout will aide catching those who flout the law

Hilary

Thank you, thirty. May I examine your comments, please?

"You state that someone who does not agree with registration of bicycles means they support the removal of number plates from all classes of road traffic. This is just being childish."

No. The main argument which is being put is that registration serves no apparent purpose. On that logic, it is difficult to see how the registration of any class of road user might be justified.

"Do you also suggest that anyone who disagrees with whale hunting must support that meat should be removed from the menu of all nations? Or perhaps anyone who does not like the taste of Brussels sprouts means they support the execution of civilians during the second world war?

No, Clearly that’s nonsense, so why suggest it unless you do not want to get involved in an adult discussion"

Well, you have answered your own question. No further explanation is necessary. What a waste of words.

"As for this nonsense about visible person, How this has become used as a weapon against anyone disagreeing, is beyond me. Can you not come up with a rational argument?"

The "visible person" argument is an argument which someone put in response to the notion that a cyclist might be identfied through registration.

According to the "visible person" argument, a cyclist need not be registered because he or she is a visible person. By extension, this argument would apply to any road user who is similarly visible. The driver of a tractor or of a combine harvester springs immediately to mind.

It is a silly argument as we both know, but one which persists. I do not know how you come to identify it as a weapon. I can only assume that you must be judging something, somewhere, by your own values, whatever those might be.

Thank you.

Saddles up!

Maybe you could read the serial number of a bicycle. It is usually found on the bottom bracket on the underside of the frame.

It would be visible, for a moment, if you were to get run over by a cyclist, although quite what the authorities would do with the information must be open to question.

Bill would naturally claim that this glmpse of a serial number in adverse conditions would constitute better identification than a registration mark might offer.

Thirtysomething

Perhaps you are reading a different website, Hilary?

The main argument which is being put is that, whilst registration serves a very apparent purpose, it does not exist only to identify the person committing an offence.

If I didn’t understand that registration served a different purpose and I only believed, despite history and the law being clear on the issue, that the only reason for registration plates is to report offences, then I might understand your point.

Are you suggesting that vehicle registration was introduced in the UK during the early 1900 for the singular reason to report motor traffic offences? (When the motor traffic law had yet to be drawn up?)

So, Why accuse me of supporting the deregulation of motor vehicles because I don’t support the introduction of registration to bicycles? You said that yourself, now your suggesting that its nonsense to have accused me of that?

As far as I have read, the “visible person” argument is in response from Bills comments that crime can be reported without registration plates. Something that some people refuse to admit, so resort to this farcical argument

As I have read, the “visible person” argument, a cyclist can be reported even without a number plate because every other crime can be reported the same way. The difference is that, with fast moving motorised traffic where the driver cannot always be clearly seen, a number plate may help in identifying the owner of the vehicle used, which may result in the owner being contacted to advise who was in control at the time. The silly argument, from what I have been reading, is that a cyclist cannot be reported without a number plate. But that’s just my own opinion from what I have read.

Hilary

No, I disagree, Thirtysomething.

The difficulty which mnany have is that continually deny that regsitration plates would assist with the apprehension of offenders. This odes not seem to me to be a very sensible approach.

I believe that you don't understand the point made by me and many others. Despite what youy say, you don't appear to understand the matter of registration, nor do yoiu seem to understand tha history and the law with which it is associated.

It is interesting to note that you use the word "accuse" within a debate. So far as I can see, no-one (with the possible exception of Bill) has accused antbody of anything. So fra as your question is concerned, you need to look to yourself if you would like an answer. In any event, you are asking yourself the wrong question on account of the fact that you have become confused between deregulation and the deregistration which others might have assumed from your comments that you support.

So, Why accuse me of supporting the deregulation of motor vehicles because I don’t support the introduction of registration to bicycles? You said that yourself, now your suggesting that its nonsense to have accused me of that?

You also admit that your knowledge of Bill's "visible person argument" is limited to the extent of "so far as you have read" on this thread. The obvious answer to that would be for you to read the comments again and to consider them properly. The only qualification here, of course, is that you would need to have the time and inclination to do so, whic many people with commitments and responsibilities will not have.

Thirtysomething

No, Hilary, you are choosing to misinterpret my comment which is why you say you do not agree, but yet you are choosing your words far more carefully and altering the substance of the prior claims.

No on has denied that number plates assist in the apprehension of offenders. This is quite clear.

People have repeatedly stated that number plates only exist to identity offenders. This on the other hand is a false claim.

I fully understand the point of registration and the law behind it, and I don’t have an issue with registration of bicycles. How would you know my understanding of the law because I state that registration plates do not identify offenders?

I have an issue with the claims for introducing number plates to bicycles put forward here, Claims that are not supported by any logic.

I do have a point with the claim that number plates (not registration) will stop people breaking the law. This is wishful thinking.

I do have a point with the claim that offences cannot be reported without number plates. This is not supported by any logic and shown to be incorrect.

And yes, I use “Accuse”! You, yourself has accused me of things!

"you do not believe that the registration of cyclists would serve any useful purpose." I believe registration of all cycles would be handy for the police in returning recovered goods. The same argument could be said for registration of Mobile phones, Ipads and Laptops and other high worth goods often stolen.

"you would support the removal of number plates from all classes of road traffic" I most certainly would not and have never even hinted at that!

So, I ask again, Why accuse me of things I have not said. Why ask me to look to myself for an answer for what you have accused me of?

And yes, I mixed my words up between Deregistration and Deregulation. A simple mistake, You also have made a number of mistakes but lets not let that detract from the issue...

Do you, Hilary, think that crime cannot be reported without a number plate? Or,

Do you dare to agree that crime *can* be reported without a number plate? So then face ridicule on this site from many by agreeing with me?

Of course, Bill’s “visible person argument” is only used by people who feel that offences cannot be reported without number plates. One has to wonder why such a revelation has not shown itself to the criminal underworld, who would immediately remove any number plates from their vehicles, as any offences they cause cannot be reported and traced back to them (apparently).

Can you imagine the boy racers attacking their cars with spanners every evening so no one can report their late night driving round Corbiere and St Catherines? I think these scenarios are unlikely, because offences, of course, can be reported without a number plates. The “visible person argument” seems to be in response to this and makes perfect sense to me in pointing out one of the many flaws in the claim that crime cannot be reported without a number plate.

I suppose, saying this will result in the new “Boy Racer argument” being bandied around by people unwilling to see the logic behind it and will continue to claim that crime cannot be reported without a number plate... What a lawless state we would live in if that was true.

Rog

"No on has denied that number plates assist in the apprehension of offenders."

** At Last **

Wiggy

Thirty has entirely missed the point. Of course anything can be reported by anyone, but it useless without a realistic chance of proper identification. I have read the Turnbull rules that Concerned generously provided the information for - although I knew this in layman's terms anyway.

The only solution that makes sense, and I can see the support on here (except for 30 and Bill) is for cycle registration plates. As with any other vehicle, it provide an easy and simple mechanism to identify owners. What point is there as others say in reporting a bald bloke with a tattoo? Useless to the police.

Hilary

No, I cannot agree, sadly. I do use words carefully, which is more than many on here do. I was not aware that I had made any mistakes in my submissions.

Registration plates would assist with the apprehension of offenders. That would seem to be a clar proposition. No mistake there.

You still don’t seem to understand the point made by me and many others. Despite what youy say, you don’t appear to understand the matter of registration, nor do you seem to understand tha history and the law with which it is associated.

You still use the word “accuse” within a debate.

So far as I can see, no-one (with the possible exception of Bill) has accused antbody of anything.

In any event, you were asking yourself the wrong question on account of the fact that you have become confused between deregulation and the deregistration which others might have assumed from your comments that you support.

nonsense to have accused me of that?

You also admit that your knowledge of Bill’s “visible person argument” is limited to the extent of “so far as you have read” on this thread. The obvious answer to that would be for you to read the comments again and to consider them properly.

When a road traffic offence is committed, the first question which an officer is likely to ask is, “did you see the registration?” It would be odd indeed if an officer were to neglect this question and ask a complainant if the driver were visible, particularly if the officer had been briefed, as indeed he or she should have been, on the guidelines set out in R-vTurnbull [1976].

Thirtysomething

Of course Hilary, you cannot agree that you are wrong.

But you have shown that you only post - Sorry, repost - to inflame the situation. The classic sign of a troll. Now why would you simply copy and paste a previous post when it clearly adds nothing to the conversation? Why would you post under different avatars? What have you to hide that you will not use a real e-mail address when posting? Are you afraid of being found out?

Besides the point of your copy and paste botch job and signs of trolism, your final remark does not bare up to the experience I have when reporting incidents. The first question has always been “what happened”. After describing the event, and the parties involved, the question you claim is the first one uttered is irrelevant.

But saying that, perhaps you are not aware of Jerseys legal system and that it is not the same system as the UK? As such, the R-vTurnbull [1976] case makes interesting reading, and the consequent guidelines may be useful, but being from a different legal system, might not even be relevant. In short it explains the legal issue with identification. Something that can apply to number plates.

Besides, You have now given a green light for any cyclist with a plate to use that case to claim identification to be mistaken and to continue to ignore the law. Well done.

Hilary

I think that most sensible pople will now see why those who support cycle registration have a very good ground.

It enables the owner of the vehicle to be identified which, by operation of law, enables the driver to be indentified.

It enables cyclist to be reported. This alone would act to reduce some of the frequent and extremely dangerous offences that cyclists commit on a daily basis.

I do not support the registration of cyclists (I am one and no, I don't wear a helmet yet), so, to a considerable extent, I am playing devil's advocate.

In the absence of a proper police presence, however, registration would seem to be the only way forward.

We have already seen three serious accidents in as many months- surely we should not wait until a further accident occurs, perhaps involving a child or an elderly person on a pavement, as has been seen with the fatalities that have sadly occurred in the uk with speeding cycles on pavements.

Now must be the time for the police and we cyclists to get our act together.

Thirtysomething

"It enables cyclist to be reported. This alone would act to reduce some of the frequent and extremely dangerous offences that cyclists commit on a daily basis."

Can you provide any research to suggest that this effect actually exists? I am happy to be informed!

Without any evidence, I cannot agree.

The existing evidence is quite, well, evident that registration does not act to reduce the frequent and extremely dangerous offences that motorists commit on a daily basis, so it cannot be assumed to have any affect on non-motorised vehicles.

"Now must be the time for the police and we cyclists to get our act together."

Now that, I fully agree with!

Sensible Bob

I think that most sensible people will understand that cycle registration was removed for very good reasons.

I think that any sensible person interested in the re-introduction of this law would have reviewed these reasons and explain why they are no longer valid.

I think no one has bothered to do that.

I dont think that the people arguing on here are sensible, except possibly for Recu La Taxe

Hilary

It is simply economy, Thirtysomething. I don’t have time on my hands like you and Bill, I have a life and responsibilities, I am afraid.

There is also, to my knowledge, no custom or convention which governs the posting of massages on a public forum, save the usual ones reagrding public decency and associated matters.

Clearly, the matter of my making comment is a source of annoyance to yourself and to Bill, if indeed you are different people. I regret to say that this will continue for as long as you continue to make silly and misleading commentaries.

Look on the bright side; you are being educated on legal matters of which you had no idea. If you were to put your ego to one side, then you might learn substantially more, both here and no doubt in your wider life.

Your latest point is one which is not well made. You say the following:

“But saying that, perhaps you are not aware of Jerseys legal system and that it is not the same system as the UK? As such, the R-vTurnbull [1976] case makes interesting reading, and the consequent guidelines may be useful, but being from a different legal system, might not even be relevant.”

Perhaps indeed I am not aware of Jersey's legal system and the fact that it is not the same as that within the United Kingdom.

Perhaps I am not aware of the fact that Turnbull has been received and followed by the Royal Court, begining with the Court of Appeal case in Smith (RP) V AG (1986) JLR 1985-86 N-8.

Certainly, you were unaware of this when you made your unwise and ill-informed comment.

Further stupidity is evident when you remark "in short it explains the legal issue with identification. Something that can apply to number plates."

No, I am afraid not. If you had taken the trouble to read the above comments and indeed the case itself, you would have seen that the guidelines apply to persons and not to property.

A registration mark is therefore a very good means of identifying the owner of a motor vehicle.

You have made a fool of yourself.

Kevin

I think you need to read all of the posts, Sensible Bob!

There have been many reasons cited and I have found the legal side interesting- many of thise arguing haven't a clue about the law, but they are learning from this thread, which has to be a good thing.

Bill

Hilary,

I was not aware of the Court of Appeal case in Smith (RP) V AG (1986) JLR 1985-86 N-8. Thank you for informing me. I wont bother to look it up.

This is, of course, why I was specific in saying that it "may be useful, but being from a different legal system, might not even be relevant.”

Notice the "May be useful" and "Might not" indicating that there is likely to be information I was not aware of.

Ill-informed? perhaps, but not unwise. I was prepared for information I had not been made aware of.

Now, to claim that it is stupid to suggest identification, or indeed, mistaken identification can only apply to persons and not to property is not well thought out. Obviously someone may mistakenly identify the wrong registration number on a vehicle.

A registration mark, *if correctly identified with no degree of uncertainty* can indeed be a means of identifying the owner of a motor vehicle. I add the additional part, because the registration mark alone is insufficient. A description of the vehicle would also be required.

Take two hypothetical examples, Remember that people have issue with the "Visible Person" argument, so clearly any description of the person cannot be considered.

"I saw a vehicle go through a red light. From behind, it looked like a red Peugeot 103, registration J12345"

Looking at the register, the police identify that the registration J12345 is a Blue Jeep. So they will not go further along that line of inquiry.

Having additional information, they also check for all red Peugeots to discover there is one with a registration J12845.

Clearly in this case, the registration was incorrectly identified but the collaborating information enabled the police to identify the correct vehicle.

"I saw a vehicle go through a red light. It was a bicycle, registration J67890, perhaps a black or blue, even a dark green? couldn’t tell as I was behind and couldn’t see the frame because the number plate hid it. It wasn’t a racer, as it had normal handlebars, so could be a mountain bike?"

The police check the register and find that there is a bike with that number. They pay the owner a visit to find a 85 year old has his great grandsons bike in the garage for the last five years with two flat tires gathering cobwebs.

Outside the reach of the police, The real criminal on J67390 on his BMX has gotten away with it.

But will this hypothetical example now be the “BMX” issue?

Hilary

Thanks Thirtysomething/Bill.

I can't follow the convoluted examples that you give, other than to say again that the registered keeper of a vehicle is obliged to give the details of a driver where an offence occurs.

No doubt a similar provision will be extended to cyclists if they become regsitered.

There will always be difficult cases. The fact that they might exist does not mean that the law and society has to stand still, however.

You also seem to be miusunderstanding the Turnbull case yet again. It applies to personal identification and not property. Don't make a fool of yourself again, please.

I am off to bed. No doubt you will be sitting up all night responding to other posts with equally verbose, intriguing and misinformed writings. Good night.

Thirtysomething

What the hell Bill? Responding to comments to me as if you were me!

So, now, people are going to assume I am you!

Serves me right for actually seeing the points your making instead of trolling like a moronic fool!

Poppy

There is a little more to it than that, Bill or Thirtysomething, whichever it is.

You (or Bill) mentioned that you had previously posted something and you quoted yourself. Unfortunately, the name under which you posted the post in which you quoted the first post was not the name under which that first post was made, hence the conclusion. Not an unreasonable one, I am sure you will eventually agree.

When you speak of "trolling like a moronic fool", I hesitate to point out the irony of your statement.

Putting aside this rather obvious paradox, we can see that yourself and Bill have learnt quite a lot from what others have stated here. This desemination of information has clearly served a purpose, so I hardly think that those who post it could possibly fall within your self description.

Thirtysomething

Yes, Poppy, I have learnt somthing. some people will not accept that they might be wrong.

As we see with the issue that identification of a person can be challenged, yet apparetnly, identification of a short series of numbers during a fleeting glance with no collaborating evidence cannot be challenged in law..

We also see people posting in response to other peoples comments.

Fimally, we see people arguing over a common term of the english language and denying its common sense standard definition.

Janet

Well, thirty something, you say (and I hope that you recognise that this is something that you did say) "It seems some people are so obsessed that they are right, they refuse to believe someone else may have a different opinion".

I respect your opinion. I am enjoying your opinion. I expect that others respect your opinion and enjoy your opinion.

The difficulty which I have and which you also seem to have is that your opinion is not supported by any evidence or even real argument.

I am aware that you have not expressly referred to Bill's "visible person" argument. If, however, you examine your words, you will see that what you seek to argue basically amounts to the same thing.

In addition to the above, you clearly have not listened to what others have told you with regard to "fleeting glimpse" identification and with regard to the registered keeper of a vehicle and the obligation to provide a driver's identity.

It is admirable to have an opinion and such a thing should be encouraged, but you must appreciate that others will also have theirs.

It is also likely that others will be better informed at times. To maintain a poor argument in the face of better evidence is perfectly acceptable and I enjoy reading your posts and particularly those of Bill. You have to be aware, however, that if you persist in putting forward an untenable view, then it is bound to be challenged on a continuing basis.

Please do not regret commenting.

Best wishes.

Thirtysomething

Sorry? Janet, Which of my opinions are not supported by any real evidence?

The one that Registration plates do not identify offenders?

I thought that was clear and obvious, but you now disagree?

But no, Like Hilary above, you choose to use the “visible person” argument as a club to batter anyone to accept your view.

The statement stands on its own merits, and is not an untenable view. It cannot be challenged. It *can* be added to, as I believe people have. Registration plates *do* identify the owner who may advise who was using the vehicle at the time, but it *cannot* be assumed that registration plates identify the offender as the person driving the vehicle is not necessarily the owner.

I counter that the difference between a motorised vehicle and a bicycle is self evident, and it is far easier to "borrow" or steal a bicycle than a motor vehicle, so it wouldn’t be a far stretch for a registered owner to say "someone nicked it", but this conversation is departing from the subject that “registration plates do not identify the offender.”

If you disagree that “registration plates do not identify the offender.” , then, please explain how, instead of simply saying that it magically does.

Janet

Well, thirtysomething, rather than asking me which of your arguments are not supported by evidence, I should have thought that it would be more helpful for you to develop your arguments yourself.

Let me help you. Which of your arguments are supported by evidence? Perhaps you would be good enough to tell us. We are very keen to hear.

Ben

I am intrigued by Bill's visible person creation. It is quite a notion but I am not sure how it makes any sense. Maybe someone has had a littleweed?

Michael Gertanderfaren

Rather than say that registration plates do not identify the offender, surely it would be more sensible to suggest that, in general terms, they do.

We now have a faintly ridiculous argument from Tirtysomthing who thinks that bikes should not be registered because they are easier to steal than cars.

Presumably, Tirtysomthing believes that this somehow makes registration less desirable.

I would have thought that the opposite would apply. If we are looking at a type of vehicle that is likely to be stolen, then surely it is all the more important to register such a vehicle.

With regard to the "registered keeper" argument, Tirtysomething will be aware by now that the registered keeper is obliged to disclose details of a driver where an offence occurs.

In closing summary, registration does allow offenders to be identified.

Thirtysomething

Michael, but that wouldn’t be true!

It would be sensible to state that they provide an additional route of query to identify the offender, but that’s a bit of a mouthful. It certainly can aid in identifying offenders, but unlike your statement, cannot guarantee it, so Registration does not allow offenders to be identified, It aids in offenders being identified.

As I also said, the ease of stealing bikes that do not require ignition keys over motor vehicles is a conversation departing from the subject.

Its not a "ridiculous argument" that "bikes should not be registered " it was a statement, and I never said it in relation to registration, but in the self evident differences between a motorised vehicle and a bicycle.

Do pay attention!

But if you think its easier to steal a car than a bicycle, then perhaps you have watched too many holywood films.

Rog

"Registration .......aids in offenders being identified."

End of matter now surely. Everyone agrees.

Michael Gertanderfaren

Not at all Thirty.

It would be inded be sensible to state that registration plates, whether on cars are, hopefully, bicylces, provide an additional route of query to identify the offender.

It certainly can aid in identifying offenders. In fact, it is almost guaranteed to do so. Under the road traffic law, a registered keeper, if different to the driver, is obliged to give details of the driver. You seem to keep missing this rather obvious point.

Your "ease of stealing bikes that do not require ignition keys over motor vehicles" argument is indeed a point which departs from the subject so one wonders why you raised it.

In short, it is a ridiculous argument, which will doubtless come to rank alongside Bill's "visible person" argument.

Thirtysomething

Michael,

Finally, changed your tune,

As you point out, a registered keeper is obliged to give details of the driver. so, for motorised vehicles this seems to work. Now you finally agree that registration can provide an additional route of query to identify the offender.

Unfortunately, it is not guaranteed to do so. As per R-vTurnbull [1976] a registration number alone is not sufficient evidence to identify an offender. Additional information is required, such as make, model, type and colour of vehicle, which is required to correspond with the stated registration number in order to even consider approaching the registered owner.

As pointed out elsewhere, most people would not be able to identify these details on a bicycle and so the plate would serve no apparent *beneficial* purpose. Also as you say the “Visible person” is a ridiculous argument, there would not be any further corresponding evidence to collaborate the perceived number on the plate to the actual offender.

So, unless you change your mind that the “visible person” issue carries merit, then the only way for this law to be reasonably affective is to instruct the entire population on the different makes and models of bicycle in circulation.

Michael Gertanderfaren

No, still the same tune, I am afraid, Thirty.

I did point out that a registered keeper is obliged to give details of the driver. Thank goodness the message has finally dawned upon you.

Now you finally agree that registration can provide an additional route of query to identify the offender. Thank you. We seem to be making progress at last. Registration, in the case of the cyclist, provides the only route of query to identify the offender.

The last part of your post is a nonsense. Turnbull only applies to personal identification. It does not apply to vehicle registration, which continues to be the prominent means of detecting road traffic crime.

At the present time, cyclists are not registered, so there is no effective means of identifying cyclists who break the law on our roads.

You clearly now realise as well that Bill's "visible person" argument, to which you previously subscribed, is not a good one.

This then, takes us back to the point that was made right at the beginning, namely that cyclists require registration plates in order to be identified.

Jersey Bean

It was written above.......This is why, when reporting a motor traffic offence or accident, you are asked by the police “Did you see who was driving”

The usual question is actually... "Did you get the registration plate"

Enough said.

Paddy

Bill will argue that this question will not be asked at all. On his "visible person" argument, he will say that the officer will ask what the driver looked like.

On his "equality" argument, he will state that the officer will ascertain why you are only reporting the class of road user to which the offender belongs.

On his "no-one reports anything anyway" argument, he will state that the officer will ask why you are bothering to report it in the first place because no-one ever does anyway.

In all of these situations, Bill will argue that the officer will not ask for a registration number, because, quite apart from the above, number plates serve no purpose whatosoever.

David

I must quote Tobias (I hope that he does not mind), when he states:

Agree with Penny and Concerned, registration plates for bicycles are, unfortunately, rapidly becoming a necessity. There is one idiot in particular who nearly rode straight into my little daughter as I pushed her in the buggy onto the pavement on Don Road. Every morning I see the same bald-headed tattooed idiot riding on the pavement the wrong way up the no-entry, once a police van drove right past him and they didn’t even stop, guess they must have been on their way to something far more important.

I once took a video of the aforementioned idiot and took it to police HQ but the usual, “oh we can’t possibly identify him so we won’t even look at the video” which of course translates as, “we don’t want any crime reports to mess with our lovely stats”.

Every day I see plenty of cyclists going round blind corners on the pavement, jumping through red lights, undertaking, riding up no-entries etc… it’s up to them if they want to risk their own necks but when they put other people at risk – with very little chance of them being identified – then it’s definitely time to be looking at registration.

Thinker

Well David, according to Bill's flawed thinking, you should be able to ring the police and say 'I saw a bald bloke with some kind of tattoo', and they would immediately look at their database and know who he was. Um, Not.

On ther other hand, a registration plate would at least give you and the police something to go on and start with the owner of the cycle. Under car laws, it is an offence not to advise the police who was driving.

Interestingly, Bill's visible person argument that was cited on here does not work. I looked up the link that was given about Turnbull - he should read it before making himself look more foolish with this line of thinking.

I see that Bill has given up posting, no doubt he now sees he is the virtually the only one marching in line.

Henry Tremulo

Stop press! Bill has now withdrawn his "visible person" argument. See above. He claims that he never made it in the first place. Perhaps he has come down now. Reality.

Thank goodness for that.

What does this mean? It means that we can return to the point that was originally made without silly interruption.

What was the point? The point was that a cyclist cannot be identified when he or she commits a road traffic offence because the cylce bears no registration plate.

Rog

Henry - what about the bald bloke with tattoos?

I though Bill told us that this was a sufficient description to pass to the police for them to apprehend him?

Bill

Dont be so pathetic Henry, I cannot withdraw a comment I did not make.

So you are correct, lets return to the silly point.

What point?

The point that a person committing an offence cannot be reported, because they bear no registration plate.

So, neither a cyclist who rides on the pavement, or someone with a fag in a park (under the anti-smoking laws just suggested) can be identified unless they have registration plates?

It remains a stupid claim. Offences can be reported. You choose not to report cyclists and you use the excuse that they dont have plates. You may even convince yourself that there is no point of reporting a crime as you feel the police will do nothing.

Would you report an offence you have witnessed when someone just mugged a blind man (who could not identfy the mugger) or would you say "No, I cannot report this crime, there is no number plate"

Henry Tremulo

I see Bill. Having abandoned the "visible person" argument, you now fall back onto your "pedestrians bearing number plates" argument.

Can we look forward to this one being dismissed as decisively as your "visible person" argument?

Cyclists are road traffic, pedestrians, whether they are smoking cigarette or standing on their heads, are not road traffic.

Can you spot the distinction?

Cyclone

It does seem like Bill is backtracking. The visible person argument carries no realistic weight.

The above person who posted about the bald chap with the tattoo makes a valid point. There is now way the police can take action based on the back of a bald head. And I doubt anyone by a cycle geek would have a clue what type of bike it was.

The only viable way is a registration plate. Any sensible person can see that, surely.

Thinker

Bill needs to take stock and reflect on his off-piste thinking.

I hope he looks up the Turnbull rules (thanks to the legal beagle on here), before digging his hole even deeper.

Cyclone

Nice to see someone obeys the law, thirty. You must be a rare animal, and it must be so annoying that you have no way to report offences. Until cycles plates become law, and at least the police will know where to start their enquiries.

Chess Player

A cyclist failed to give way at a roundabout today when I had right of way. He cut across my path from the left. Somewhat dangerous, but I was extremely glad that a collision did not occur.

I probably wouldn't have reported the cyclist, even though he was clearly a danger to himself and to other road users. Even if I had decided to report him, I would not have been able to do so, because his cycle bore no registration plate.

I was, nonetheless, mindful of the "visible person" criteria which Bill has formulated within this column and I thought about it as I drove off after the near miss.

According to Bill, registration is unnecessary, because a cyclist is a visible person and, as such, might be described to a police officer in the event that a report is made.

So, what distinguishing features did the chap have? Well, it was difficult to determine his height, because he was seated on a bicycle. I could not say, either, what the colour of his hair might have been, because he was wearing a cycle helmet, perhaps in recognition, subconsciously or otherwise, of his poor road sense and lack of consideration for other road users.

What was he wearing? That, too is a difficult question. Cycling shorts and a lycra top in a nondescript colour. I was able to see, I think, that he was aged between twenty and fifty-five years of age.

Despite my efforts to adopt Bill's advice, I could not read the badge on the front of the cycle frame (if such a badge exists), although I did see that the cycle frame was painted blue or possibly black.

According to Bill, therefore, I would now be in a position to report the offence.

I could tell an officer that the person concerned was of indeterminate height and build, indeterminate hair colour and was a male aged between twenty and fifty-five.

In apparent accordance with Bill's "visible person" standard, this information would be superior to the information that could immediately be discovered from a system of vehicle registration. Bill will no doubt be able to explain the workings of this in due course.

One other point which is worthy of note is that the cyclist was wearing a pair of ear-phones as he committed his offence. He was seemingly oblivious to the possibility of other vehicles being on the road in the middle of a Sunday. Bill will, again no doubt, argue that the ear-phones would provide a valuable piece of descriptive evidence in his "visible person" standard.

Apart from the general failure of this standard, one should also bear in mind that, given the number of cyclists who ride with their hearing disabled in this way, the ear-phones would not have been in any way unusual or distinguishing.

puffin

Chess Player I think this must be the same cyclist who undertook me going through the lights at Midvale Road today, and nearly got himself killed as there were cars coming the other way, then proceeded to hurl abuse at the cars!

He too was between 25-50 and wearing lycra shorts and a cycling helmet, with a dark coloured bike, too much of a coincidence it must be the same person? I think I will go and report him! :)

Thirtysomething

Thanks Cyclone, but I am not that rare. I see many cyclists obeying the law, with a few, mostly lycra clad idiots ignoring them. Those few are more memorable than the many.

After having been knocked over a couple of times whilst waiting in the queue behind cars at traffic lights, (one motorist coming from behind claimed they didn’t see me, the other said that I should have undertaken the car in front so it was my fault he hit me) I started using a video camera on the bike. It was cheaper than the helmet I wear and the best buy in a long time. It would be no use recording other peoples offences if I was to ignore the law myself!

I sometimes post the more serious offences on facebook., including a bald headed chap who likes to use the pavement and ignores red lights and a woman in a white car that has thrown me off my bike and driven off (no, I didn't get her number, but the video did).

Having a few officers on my friends lists is far more efficient than actually having to go down the station to report it, fill out forms and be told they will look into it.

I don't see registration as an issue, I see the police being able (or willing) to do something about it as more of an issue, like reporting motorists on cell phones, It simply ends up as my word against theirs. Technology is changing, and even insurance firms are requesting cars to be fitted with video cameras to swiftly resolve issues.

Cyclone

Being struck from behind is a case of strict liability at law, so you should have reported it. It would not have mattered what the motorist said. I do however see the majority of cyclists breaking the law I am sad to say.

But it is no good being a vigilante - let the police do their job and enable them to take proper action by being able to follow up on the registered keeper of a cycle. A law for this does appear to have the support of nearly every contributor on here.

As the chap above said, identifying someone as bald with a tattoo won't cut the mustard withe CPS or court.

Thirtysomething

Thanks Cyclone. I did report it both times, but with no injury and no visible damage (except a bent mudguard) I was told that it was only my word against theirs.

A case would to go to court, and with enough evidence to make it worth investigating.

Hence the camera :-)

Concerned

This sounds like extremely poor policing, Thirtysomething. I am glad that you were not injured. I have had one or two accidents myself while cycling and indeed in the car.

Did you consider making a civil claim?

You are right about cameras. As well as "helmet cam", there is also "dash cam". Insurance companies are keen on these devices, as you have said.

Although I hesitate to raise the point yet again, I am aware that, at least with motor traffic, a camera will pick up a registration, whereas the position of identification will be far more difficult in the case of the erring cyclist due to the lack of any registration mark.

Even a "visible person" caught on camera will be by no means easy to trace.

Thinker

Even with Bill's visible person argument, in this instance, say a silver car was the offender, but there was no registration plate, it would be of little use to the police even with a camera.

At least a registation plate would be clear evidence.

Thirtysomething

Concerned, No, the civil claim was not worth the hassle considering I was not hurt and my property not damaged other than a bendable mudguard. At least the camera I have now will provide handy evidence to support a future claim.

You are correct that identification is more difficult in the case of erring cyclists, but I don’t agree that registration plates are a viable option. Unfortunately, I agree with Bill again there. We have to find a way to reduce the road traffic offences in Jersey, People need to start driving and cycling better and within the law. Number plates don’t do this.

Better policing would be a start. More CCTV cameras (which bring up even more issues) would help in tracking offenders and police could respond. A couple of police near hotspots would catch a lot (at least cyclists apparently).

If more people are caught and charged, it will create a fear of committing an offence, something that should be the case but clearly is not.

We have just been informed that Jersey issues over a hundred parking tickets each day in an island of less than 100 thousand people. That’s an amazing number of people parking illegally, and that’s just the ones caught.

We have people speeding with abandon and the police will not get out the expensive Lastec camera from the cupboard because it caught and photographed too many people doing 20% over the limit within two hours the last time they used it that it created too much paper work for the honoraries to handle.

If the police in Jersey don’t bother to uphold the law because too many people break it? Then they wonder how to make the roads safer?

Pat

saw another bike one this morning- wrong though red light and then wrong way round Cheapside, presumably to mount pavement and then ride wrong way onto inner road like they all do.

Couldn't report it because no registration number. He had dark hair but that's about it.

No Clue

Perhaps the camera could be rigged with number plate recognition software as with motor vehicles. Better than a snapshot of the back of a bald head.

Investigating a 'visible person' report without a registration plate is a waste of police time as they have not idea where to start.

I have to say a big thank you to Bill and 30 for highlighting the need for plates in this column. They both have done far more for the cause to raise the awareness and need for this, had they said nothing, as shown by the large number of contributors in support of registration. Keep up the good work.

Fingers

Perhaps a special formulation of number plate recognition could be developed in order to address Bill's "visible person" standard.

This would be "visible person" recognition and could be based upon a database of big ears, noses, lips etc and bald heads and tattoos and other distinguishing marks or features.

Bill?

C Le Verdic

I blame immigration for the difficulty in identifying cyclists.

We used to know who everyone in the island was, whether on bikes, in vehicles or on foot.

John

Good points Janet. As I was somewhat bored I took the trouble to read Bill's nonsensical ramblings. Maybe there is some kind of attention need. Unfortunately it is 30 something minutes I will not get back. Thank you Bill. I look forward to avoid your posts in future

Schmat

Wow there are a lot of posts but I do agree with John. I wish I had not started.

What on earth is Bill on?

Rog

Yes, John could well be right. I have better things to do, but I am not sure Bill has.

Pat

Bill, have you seen the post on the 'having bags at waitrose'

http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/2013/08/04/they%e2%80%99re-having-bags-of-fun-at-waitrose/

Perhaps you might like to respond to this with your visible person argument

Padlocked Fridge

He's moved on now. He thinks that pedestrians are road traffic. He must wonder why they go through red lignts and run down the avenue at over 40!

On the other hand, he wonders why cyclists, as road traffic, are subject to laws which they don't obey and then he wonders why some people are calling for them to be registered.

I wonder if he's considered stand up?

Bill

Padlocked. It was you that had moved on to claiming pedestrians are not legally allowed to use roads?

I don’t wonder anything about cycles, I say registration will not prevent people from committing an offence.

I do wonder if you have considered posting comments under the same user name and icon instead of the multiple posts under different ones?

http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/2013/08/06/cigarette-butts-are-a-plague-on-our-beaches-says-senator/#comment-333663

Margot

If pedestrians are not road traffic, then that explains why the town is dieing. People cannot legally get from the few remaining parking spaces to the shops without using roads!

Heaven forbid what the idiots who think pedestrians are not road traffic would think about horses!

Padlocked Fridge

Not me, Bill, The "pedestrians on roads" argument is another one of yours, I am afraid.

Kettle

No, no, Bill. Do keep up. Fridge did not say that at all. He was flagging up your nonsense about pedstrians being road traffic.

I acn feel another "visible person" classic coming on....:)

Pedestrian Road Traffic Bill

I went into town this afternoon in order to do some shopping.

The pedestrian traffic was dreadful. People were queuing all the way down Mont Millais.

I could not find anywhere to park, but managed to find a space in the Parade. I stood there for over an hour with a scratchcard stuck behind my ear. Unfortunately, I overstayed my time and a "parking control officer" arrived and stuck a parking ticket to my person.

Things went from bad to worse. I walked though a red light on the way to First Tower and was stopped by the police shortly afterwards for walking at more than 30mph on the inner road.

Bill

Padlocked, Yes, You. The stupid “pedestrians on roads” argument is yours.

I said,

"A cyclist is subject to sections of the law relating to road traffic and pedestrians are also subject to sections of the same laws."

This is quite clear that sections of the law, and not the entire law, applies to pedestrians.

You disagreed, because you did not understand what provisions of the Road Traffic Law applies to pedestrians. You even try to claim that pedestrians are not covered by the Road Traffic law, meaning, clearly, that they legally could not use a road.

I gave you one example of how the law applies to pedestrians, and you say I “had to do better than that”

You even needed to ask "when have pedestrian prosecuted for speeding? Running a red light?" and so on.

Had you have bothered to look, you would be aware that those sections of the law specify that it applies to Vehicles only.

Ben

The case for cycle registration is made here. A very compelling argument

http://vimeo.com/36287895

Padlocked Fridge

No, not mine, Bill.

That argument bears the hallmark of your creative thinking and failure to take responsibility, along with your "visible person argument", your "no-one reports anything argument", your "pedestrians bearing number plates argument", your "equality" argument and your "children on tricycles" argument.

Have you considered a career with British Leyland?

Eric

Sorry, I have just got to comment on this:

Bill said,

"You even try to claim that pedestrians are not covered by the Road Traffic law, meaning, clearly, that they legally could not use a road."

Where do we start with this kind of statement??!

Taking it slowly, pedestrians are not covered by the Road Traffic Law, Bill, but that doesn't mean that they can't use the roads.

Don't tell me that that is the reason why you have been staying in writing all of your posts? It's quite safe, you can go out now!

Concerned

Your mind is getting all confused again, Bill.

You wrote: "You disagreed, because you did not understand what provisions of the Road Traffic Law applies to pedestrians. You even try to claim that pedestrians are not covered by the Road Traffic law, meaning, clearly, that they legally could not use a road."

I can help you there, Bill. Pedestrians are not covered by the road traffic law in general terms.

This does not mean that they cannot use the roads, so you can rest easy, old chap.

A road is a public place and the road traffic law does not act to prohibit pedestrian wayfare.

What the road traffic law does do is to make provision for the regulation of road traffic.

Part of this regulation is the creation of criminal offences in respect of road traffic. As we know, cyclists are subject to many of these laws. Part of the difficulty lies with the fact that, although they are subject to these laws, they are not registered.

Pedestrians, however, are not subject to such laws. Furthermore, they continue to be legally entitled to use a road, notwithstanding that the road traffic law, quite rightly, does not apply to them.

I hope that this might go at least some way towards setting your mind at rest.

Toad Traffic

We now see a new argument from Bill.

This is the "who said what" argument, where he makes a point but then asks who made it.

I believe that it is related to the "visible person" argument, although a variation would be "who saw what".

Unfortunately, it would not be a very rewarding game if you were standing in St Helier by a set of traffic lights of a morning- you would doubtless see many cyclists breaching the red lights but the lack of registration means that there would be no chance of reporting them.

Bill

Ben evoked Godwin's law.

Discussion over.

Poppy

Traffic is defined as people, vehicles or goods being moved in an area.

Road Traffic defines a particular area.

Pedestrians are, by definition, Road traffic, although the term generally referrers to motor vehicles.

Pedestrians are covered by the Road Traffic law, although many sections of that law define the certain classes of road users that particular section applies to

I hope this clears this nonsense.

Ermintrude

You seem to be confused, Bill when you speak of pedestrians being road traffic.

Pedestrians are not subject to the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956. This does not mean that they cannot walk on the roads and other public areas as you suggest. It simply means that pedestrians are not subject to that law.

The 1956 Law does not define pedestrians, nor does it define the term "pedestrian traffic" upon which you place so much reliance. The interpretation section at the beginning of the law ensures, however, that the term "pedestrian" includes a person in a wheelchair.

You go on to become confused when you speak of your highway code document. You interchange the terms "road user" and "road traffic", both of which have different meanings in a non-technical sense and no doubt at law.

So, a pedestrian is not road traffic. This perhaps makes little difference in practice, because, as you point out, pedestrians are not bound by road traffic laws.

In closing, therefore, we see also that road traffic has historically been registered, chiefly in order to enable those who breach the rules of the road to be identified. Pedestrians, as we now know, are not road traffic, whereas a cyclist is so deemed. At the present time, cyclists are not required to be registered.

A cyclist is subject to a body of laws relating to road traffic and the necessary policing of the same, whereas a pedestrian, as we also now know is not.

Cyclone

I can't believe it has come to this, but the Road Traffic Act 1998 (UK) defines 'cycles', but not 'pedestrians'.

I wonder why?

Clearly some people have got too much time on their hands.

Wendy

Cyclone,

Perhaps because 'pedestrians' is a commonly understood term, meaning a human on foot.

Where as a cycle, in law, would need to be clarified as this may mean many different things, a standard bicycle, tandem, tricycle, unicycle, motorised bicycle electric cycle, pedal cycle and so on.

But, as you point out, the Road Traffic Act 1998 (UK) does include pedestrians as traffic. Specifically "persons on foot and other traffic, is guilty of an offence. "

Here it defines the traffic applicable is Pedestrians, and OTHER traffic.

So you have confirmed that UK law states Pedestrians are traffic.

But are we not talking about the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956?

MB BcH BsC (Psyc)

Good afternoon, Bill. What a lovely day we are having.

Can I be so bold as to pick up something which you very kindly posted in response to Ben in the above?

You state that Ben has invoked (not "evoked") Godwin's law.

Ben has not invoked Godwin's law. I think that what you are trying to say is that you have invoked Godwin's law.

Having dealt with this preliminary error, we might move onto the substance of "Godwin's Law".

This "law" is often misused, as here, where one wishes to censor or to end a discussion, as you have expressed the wish to do. In so far as "Godwin's Law" has any application at all, it is clearly inappropriate for it to be invoked here.

There is a simple way in which you might end the discussion as you expressly wish, Bill. Stop posting messages. You need not feel under any compulsion to do so, although the above evidence would seem to suggest that your situation may not be as clear cut as that.

Best wishes.

Cyclone

No Wendy, pedestrians clearly are not road traffic for the purposes of the law. But it does not really matter. Anyone with a modicum of common sense would not look any further than this unless they were being deliberate obtuse.

Let's move on. Even Bill now agrees that registration plates aide prosecution.

ABC, XYZ (Real life)

Umm.. Godwins law is that as any discussion on the internet progresses, the chance that someone will make a comparison to Nazis increases..

In this case, Ben has posted a link to a video suggesting that people who support cycle registration are no better than Hitler.

A clear example of Godwins law, and has nothing to do with the censor or end of a discussion, so it is clearly inappropriate for you to make that claim.

If you understood psychology at all, you would understand that!

Anyway, please explain why people feel that they are unable to report a crime committed whilst a person is on a two wheel mechanism, yet feel perfectly happy to report a crime committed when on foot? Which, being a Psychologist, you would understand is the issue here.

Rog

I suspect that Ben simply posted that link to show how ridiculous some of the contributions here are. I recall the same video being used recently with a satirical Jersey theme being overlaid. Both were very funny though. As are many of the posts here.

Earl

"A clear example of Godwins law, and has nothing to do with the censor or end of a discussion, so it is clearly inappropriate for you to make that claim."

Err, no. Not a clear example. Not an example at all, in fact.

It also has everything to do with ending the discussion, because the person who wrongly "evoked" "Godwin's Law"wanted to end the discussion and said so.

So, it was clearly entirely appropriate for others to claim that "Godwin's Law" was cited in error and for an improper purpose.

Sensible Bob

I think that most sensible people will understand that Road Traffic and Motor Traffic are two different things.

I think that most sensible people will understand that pedestrians use roads, especially green lanes (whos speed limit is dictated by the use of pedestrians,) so would discribe pedestrians as one of many forms of road traffic.

I think that most sensible people will understand that pedestrians are not vehicals, and, should they be interested, understand that traffic lights, by law, apply to vehicals.

I wonder if it is sensible to argue the meaning of words without understanding or checking their meaning?

I wonder if it is sensible to argue the law without understanding its contents?

Hilary

I quite agree, Bob.

Bill

I agree. Even the Highway code states that pedestrians are one of a number of different types of road traffic.

Ben

Does it Bill? Where?

Doh

That's really daft bob. Pedestrians are not traffic but of course they use the roads. Next you'll be saying that a hedgehog crossing in the night is a road user.

If you continue in this vein, you really should drop the 'sensible' and replace it with something more appropriate.

Daft Idea

Come on Bob, next you'll be saying a hedgehog crossing the road is traffic.

Let's not create a nonsensical semantics position. It is clear clear to anyone with common sense that a pedestrian is governed by different rules to a bicycle. Since when was a pedestrian required to wear a bell.

Perhaps you need to change your name to just 'bob' and remove the 'sensible' part.

.

And because red traffic lights apply to "vehicals", and cyclists are "vehicals", then it follows that cyclists are obliged to stop at red traffic lights.

Many don't at the moment, because they have no registration plates and thus cannot be reported.

Sensible Bob

I think that most sensible people would use a dictionary to understand the meaning of "traffic"

A sensible person would understand the meaning of "traffic" includes pedestrians.

A sensible person understands that pedestrians are governed by different rules than a bicycle.

Likewise a sensible person understands bicycles are governed by different rules than a car.

A sensible person would see that some of these rules overlap, governing multiple road users.

These rules are laid out in the Road Traffic law, should you choose to read it.

Letty

A sensible person would also understand the law instead of misquoting it, misunderstanding it and generally making a fool of himself, Bob.

Sensible Bob

A sensible person would not accuse someone of misquoting something when that person had not quoted anything.

A sensible person would not accuse someone of being a fool when posting foolish messages themselves.

As suggested above, A sensible person would not argue the meaning of words without understanding or checking their meaning.

Pat

No one can be that balmy, surely, Fridge? This is troll like behaviour, ignoring common sense in the face of so many on here.

Thinker

I'm surprised that Bill is continuing to post. Even he admits that cycle regisatration plates are a useful aide to enabling police to take action.

There is no other logical and effective mechanism to be able to properly follow up on breaches of the law.

Thinker

What's his nonsense Bill is on about comparing pedestrians to cyclists. Really Bill, no more on this silly idea, please!

Confused dot com

Bill, can you help with some advice please. I was walking to town yesterday and was so tired I sat on the pavement for a rest and accidently dropped off for a few minutes.

Imagine my surprise when I woke up with a parking ticket stick to my forehead. Apparently I breached the road traffic law by parking on the pavement.

I was confused when I tried to look up the law, can you advise what I should do please?

Cyclone

Perhaps the cyclists can be given a trial period to create the mutual respect needed between motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. The respect that has been lost due to lawless and arrogant behaviour of far too many.

If after this period, cyclists cannot respect the law, then there has to be a mechanism created through a registration scheme to enable the offenders to be traced.

Piston

Perhaps motorists can be given a trial period with registration plates, to see if they have any respect to other road users, Horses, bicycles, Pedestrians or others.

The respect that has been lost due to lawless and arrogant behaviour of far too many.

If after this period, motorists cannot respect the law, then there has to be a mechanism created to enforce the law.

Weaver

Motorists have obviously failed your registration test, so perhaps regsitration should be removed now as it was for cyclists.

Bill

Confused dot com.

I think the problem is that you are the size of a bus. Go on a diet.

Seriously though, That was a joke.

You appear to have confused law that applies to motor vehicles with the road traffic law.

Now, Strangely, it appears that under the Road Traffic Law 1956 Revised Edition, section 21 (limitation of speed), In Jersey, the speed limit applies only to Motor Vehicles.

I am sure other people will tell me I am wrong, and I hope I am, but can someone who does so actually point to the law that limits the speed of other pedestrian controlled vehicles such as bycicles or an electrically assisted pedal cycle?

It appears that they are excempt from the speed limit under Jersey Law?

Parking

The speeding thing sounds like a loophole that needs closing Bill, along with the regsitration exemption that cyclists presently abuse.

R B Bougourd

'...other pedestrian controlled vehicles'

Does anyone else remember Mr Romaine, the window cleaner, who had a cart attached to the business end of a motor bike and who used to walk alongside it, thereby controlling it as a pedestrian? That contraption must have come within the purview of the Règlement des Chemins. It would have been around in Mr Burton's day at the traffic office, if it had needed a classification, which I'm sure it did.

No need for a helmet, although nowadays window cleaners really ought to wear hard hats in case a plant pot from an upper window box falls on their head.

Keep it up Bill. I've understood your logic all along even if others, or even you, find it difficult at times.

Doh

That’s really daft bob. Pedestrians are not traffic but of course they use the roads. Next you’ll be saying that a hedgehog crossing in the night is 'traffic'.

If you continue in this vein, you really should drop the ‘sensible’ and replace it with something more appropriate

Martin

Is there a theme emerging?

Cyclist has an accident.

Problem gets compounded by motorist not giving cyclist enough room to have the accident.

This might sound ridiculous, but if cyclists are treated like a child playing on the pavement with a ball, then perhaps the cyclist will get to walk away from their initial accident, rather than paying for it with their lives(!)

The Institute of Advanced Motorists teaches the value of anticipation. Treat everyone else on the roads as if they're an idiot (but don't shout at them).

Like all serious incidents, it's a chain of events that cause the problem. We just need to break the chain.

It's not easy though. Some of the roads are quite narrow...

Peter

Here's a good one.

A cyclist in England approaches a level crossing. The gates are down. A train is coming. The clue to this is that the gates were down.

The cyclist was wearing head phones.

Did he stop at the barriers? No. He carefully manoevered himself and his bike around them.

Motorists began to blow their horns and wave at the cyclist in deperate concerned. How rude. Motorists hooting a cyclist.

The train arrived. The cyclist did not know what had hit him.

After the inquest, the cyclist's sister emerges from the coroner's building and makes a short statement.

She blames the rail company for not having an adequate level crossing.

Concerned

Popped into town recently and saw, on two separate occasions, cyclists running red lights, one while chatting on a mobile. The motorist waiting at the lights could not believe what he was seeing, if his expression was anything to go by.

The other cyclist was in front of me on Stopford Road when the lights turned red and hesitated when I blew my horn, but then proceeded against the law anyway. I had an idea that he was going to go staright through because I had just witnessed him overtaking another car on the inside of a filter in turn in the most dangerous and selfish way.

I would have reported this series of road traffic offences if the cyclist had had a registration plate and I would have been delighted to go to court and to give evidence.

On the way in, I saw two others cycling on the pavement against the one-way system by Robin Hood.

I don’t know what is happening in St Helier, but there seems to be a complete breakdown in law enforcement when it comes to cyclists.

This need sorting before there is a dreadful accident- the errant cyclist will no doubt claim that it is not his or her fault but someone, probably a pedestrian on a pavement or crossing while the lights are red, is going to be seriously injured.

Let’s not hope that we have to get to that stage before the St Helier police decide to take notice.

Cycle registration may be the only answer if the rot is allowed to set in for much longer.

Thinker

It seems after exhaustive and unnecessary posts around definitions of pedestriams, hedehogs and road traffic laws, it can all be distilled into a single view.

Cycle registration aides law enforcement and provides an appropriate mechanism to identify offenders. The nonsensical visible person argument is not worth commenting further.

Putting such a system in place would make offender think twice about jumping that red light, or cycling the wrong way up a one way street. Whilst such a step may not appear palatable to a minority, the lawlessness has to stop. Time is running out for ways to be changed, failing that they will be forceably changed.