Number Plates - On Your Bike?

"I don't want to go to war with the bikers, I want to keep people safe." The words of Philadelphia city councillor, Jim Kenney, who proposes that bicycles should have number plates and be subject to the same licensing and taxation rules as motor vehicles.

On the face of it, it seems a reasonable contention. After all, despite the evidence, cyclists are subject to exactly the same regulations as motorists when it comes to observing the rules of the road.

The difference is that, whilst the vast majority of bicyclists are responsible road-users, it is nigh on impossible to identify those who do flout the law.

Proposals to force peddlers to carry plates are nothing new. Even the cyclists' champion, Ken Livingstone, grandly announced a similar scheme as far back as 1986, but this came to nothing.

So, let's examine some possible areas of enforcement in more detail:

Number Plates: The counter-argument is that metal or plastic plates big enough to be of any real value could be a considerable hazard in a crash. There is nothing to stop electronic tagging, though.

Road Tax: It would certainly be difficult to justify any contribution towards road maintenance. Given the state of our highways, the tarmac (or lack of it) is far more likely to damage your bike.

MOT: There can be little argument against the need for any road vehicle to be roadworthy, and a simple periodic test of brakes and lights would seem a responsible approach.

Insurance: A bike at full pelt (remember, you can easily get 40mph out of a good racing model) can do a lot of damage to a pedestrian. Why should they have to seek redress through the courts when a motor-cyclist would have his third-party liability covered?

Licences: This is the prickly one. There is no minimum age for cyclists, so any kid who has mastered the age-old art can, quite legally, wobble all over any highway (except, of course, a motorway) to their heart's content. Some sort of revocable permission is tempting. The Cycling Proficiency Test, first introduced in 1947, is still taken by nearly a quarter of a million children each year, but remains entirely optional. Would it really be unreasonable to make it compulsory?

Unfortunately, the logical extension to all these arguments would take in the other principal group of road-users i.e. pedestrians. Well there's a can of worms. Motor vehicles are obliged to give way to pedestrians in a number of instances, although probably best not to force the issue. But the bipeds themselves can certainly be at fault in road accidents. Equally, however, they are capable of inciting many other forms of mayhem. So, should we all be forced to take out public liability insurance to cover all eventualities?

You can make up your own jokes about MOTs for pedestrians!

Back to News Index