Thought I may as well just paste my comments from this same thread over on 'the other forum' ....
To respond to the original question - the ADVICE given in the Highway Code is for cyclists to 'never ride more than two abreast' ; it does not say ' you may ride two abreast wherever and whenever you feel like it ' .
On the matters of VED and insurance .
It is not compulsory for cyclists to have third party insurance , but I believe it is prudent since even minor scratches to a motor vehicle can cost hundreds of pounds to rectify if you end up having to pay for them . If a cyclist , going 25 mph , hits a small child or other pedestrian they could certainly cause serious injury - so ought to be insured for that eventuality . I remember witnessing a crash between two cyclists in Glasgow city centre some years ago : traffic was queued in two lanes for some distance - cyclist 1 was travelling at a good pace between the two lanes of static traffic , just when cyclist 2 decided to turn right across his path between stationary cars - CRASH ! Bent bikes , blood , and an ambulance called for the one travelling at speed who broke his arm . They were both lycra'd up in high-vis gear and wearing helmets - both could have avoided the incident with a little care .
I have long contended , and have stated on several forums , that I feel cyclists ought to have some form of visible identification - it is precisely because of anonymity that so many cyclists ( not all , I hasten to add ) openly flout so many traffic laws endangering primarily themselves as well as others : in towns and cities disregarding of traffic signals is seen everyday ; weaving in and out of traffic ; passing to the left of traffic already signalling to turn left ( then complaining that they were run over ) ; cycling on pavements - to the danger of pedestrians ; cycling after dark without lights or reflective clothing to name but a few commonly seen offences .
I would suggest that adult cyclists ought to be registered , and have to display some sort of registration number - my original suggestion was a tabard with the registration number displayed across the back at shoulder height . This number would be unique to a rider , not the cycle , so each rider could be held accountable for their actions . A small charge of , say , £10 or £20 per year to cover the admin involved would . in my mind , not be unreasonale .
There is also the argument that there is an increasing amount of infrastructure being put in place for cyclists on the roads these days : dedicated ( sometimes physically separate ) cycle lanes , advanced stop lines at traffic signals , separate traffic signals , separate cycle ways , national cycle routes - all of which costs money - SO WHY SHOULD THE CYCLISTS NOT CONTRIBUTE DIRECTLY TOWARDS THIS rather than putting the burden on non-cyclists who will never use these facilities ?
The issue of cycle lanes raises another question : when a cycle lane is provided at considerable expense - such as the one which runs many miles of the A77 , almost from Kilmarnock to Glasgow - why is it not compulsory for cyclists to use the lane provided rather than endangering themselves and inconveniencing other road users by still riding on the main carriageway ? I have heard the pathetic excuse that the surface is not as good , or may not be clear of debris that might cause a puncture - certainly the A77 lane is exactly the same as the road surface ( I have cycled it ) and is cleared regularly . I'd also venture that the consequences of a puncture on a separate lane are potentially less than those of being hit by a car doing 60mph when there was no need to be using the same bit of road . Since fitting kevlar bands in my bike tyres more than 10 years ago , I have never since had a puncture - although I had plenty before .
The last thing I will bring up is bike maintenance - I remember crossing a road at lights with the ' green man ' in my favour , only to be shouted at by this cyclist " watch out - I've got no brakes !!! " . As above , I have often seen unlit bikes out after dark and I'm sure there are other dangerous mechanical failings out there . Since some cyclists clearly don't bother about any maintenance - there is also a strong argument for a 'bike MOT' to at least check things like tyres , brakes , lights and a few other basics on at least an annual basis . This could be undertaken by bike shops in much the same way as garages are appointed as MOT test stations . The main benefit would be for cyclists themselves , but other road users would benefit too .
Sadly , people on bikes tend to fall into two categories : responsible cyclists who do obey all the rules and cycle responsibly ; and suicidal IDIOTS who disregard every rule they possibly can .
