Interesting point 369

It would remove one of the incentives to cycle, i.e. it is a cheap method of transport.

Reduction in cycling = less healthy nation, higher NHS bills, worsening obesity epidemic, increased traffic congestion, increased pollution, increased danger to remaining cyclists as drivers get less accustomed to seeing bikes on the road.

We would be the laughing stock of Europe in that a country with the most congested roads in Europe would be taking measures to discourage alternatives to the car.

The prats on bikes would become prats in cars causing more rest and destruction.

How much taxpayers money would be required to set it all up and police it? After all there is no point in introducing a new law if you are not going to enforce it.

If you start with cyclists, you would have to move on to other non-motorised road users i.e. pedestrians and horse riders (why just single out one group of road users?). Of course the only way to do this would to implant tracking devices into everyone. A government that suggests this would not last long in office.

And even if all this could be overcome, there is no guarentee that it would give any benefit to the quality of life to society. After all, hit and run incidents still occur despite registration and licencing of motor vehicles.

If you want to do something about the carnage on the roads, attacking cyclists is not the way to do it.

A better way to reduce antisocial cyclist behaviour (or antisocial anything) would be through training, education and police enforcement. This is the problem with many of the laws in this country - they are not enforced because the infringements are not seen, so people get used to being able to break them. Once this happens it is hard to get people out of that habit.