A licence needed just to cycle?

[Datsun366]

 

 

IMO maybe they were thinking of having cycling lanes in the future. I also feel that PCN isn't considered exclusive to cyclists because there are signs along the PCN reminding users to be considerate as its a shared path.

How about close lane at certain times like bus lane lor. Heheheh. You block pro cyclist, you wrong lor. Ganna sue by govt. Happy?

[Nzy]

 

abusing foreign workers with a basic pay of $15 per day?

$ 15 x 30 day = $450

 

 

no wonder all the towkays is becoming more and more rich.

 

so is your mum the boss of that company you mention?

 

Cuz they are paid by how much work they do. Some are only doing gardening so they earn very little.

[Scoots]

 

I don't know which 1 of us is sicker? I don't reply at 7am in the morning.

Again...

avoiding the challenged arguments.

Diverting the topic.

 

Tsk tsk tsk .... *facepalm*

Edited October 14, 2013 by Scoots

[inlinesix]

Again...

avoiding the challenged arguments.

Diverting the topic.

 

Tsk tsk tsk .... *facepalm*

Ok lah. Since u say i avoid ur challenged argument, this is my point:

1. What's the pt of having another rules/regulations if no one gonna enforce it. Look at the road condition now. It is caused by lack of TP presence.

2. If there is TP presence on the road, why do we need traceability?

 

I am an ordinary person. From my home to zebra crossing is 500m. If U R regular cyclist, would u cycle or walk everyday? Do it daily for a mth & give me ur feedback.

[Scoots]

Since you try to engage the points, here's the rebuttal

 

1. What's the pt of having another rules/regulations if no one gonna enforce it. Look at the road condition now. It is caused by lack of TP presence.

 

Again, lack of enforcement does not mean that a gap in legislation should not be plugged. A road user's behaviour is his/her OWN decision and not a result of TPs presence.

 

On the other hand, regardless of enforcement or not, the psychological aspect of being open to be traced can help to discourage those who may be tempted to break the rules. Eg. Drivers who give the middle finger risk being called up if that act and his car number plate was caught on camera and the other party has the pocket to pursue a case. Anyone receiving a cyclist's middle finger, even if caught on camera and have the means to pursue a civil case, can only LLST

 

THAT is the biggest imbalance that exist for not licensing/registering cyclists.

 

2. If there is TP presence on the road, why do we need traceability?

 

If your point is that there is enough TP presence. Car, motorcycles, lorries, trucks etc .. can all be without license plates, just as cyclists

If your point is that there is not enough TP presence. The cyclists need to be just as traceable as all other road users

 

 

 

I am an ordinary person. From my home to zebra crossing is 500m. If U R regular cyclist, would u cycle or walk everyday? Do it daily for a mth & give me ur feedback.

I honestly do not see what's the point/contradiction that you are trying to paint here. But fundamentally, YOU chose to cycle. If you have a problem following the rules that govern cyclists, that does not make it right for you to break/bend them.

 

This excuse is just as sound for someone who works in Lim Chu Kang Lane 3 and justifying his driving at 120km/hr along Lim Chu Kang Road to and from work daily

 

You are right. You are an ordinary person, using the common resource as everyone else. In this case, other road users. Do not expect extraordinary concessions/treatment.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Scoots

[Tonyng]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqIkWLvOiXE

 

There is a funny hitler video on bicycle registration.

 

Actually many countries got try before, many failed... Primarily cost outweigh revenue... But of course just charge more loh...this one I think singapore can do.

[Baal]

confirm can be done. Remember how they enforced the ban on bicycles with mini 2 stroke engines. For starters, the new rules should be for those cycling on public roads. Not at parks, trekking paths, cycling paths at east coast...etc.

1) Compulsory to pass traffic theory test. License

2) COE ? Is there a frame number on the bicycle? Maybe start at $1 like how it started for moto.
3) Road Tax. Maybe start with like how moto was long ago. $20/year
4) Insurance
5) ERP ( 1/2 the rate for moto )
6) Demerit Point system. Liciense revoke = can still cycle, but not on public roads.

Priority should be 1st to make cyclist using pulic roads accountable & responsible. Revenue is secondary.

[Nzy]

confirm can be done. Remember how they enforced the ban on bicycles with mini 2 stroke engines. For starters, the new rules should be for those cycling on public roads. Not at parks, trekking paths, cycling paths at east coast...etc.

 

1) Compulsory to pass traffic theory test. License

2) COE ? Is there a frame number on the bicycle? Maybe start at $1 like how it started for moto.

3) Road Tax. Maybe start with like how moto was long ago. $20/year

4) Insurance

5) ERP ( 1/2 the rate for moto )

6) Demerit Point system. Liciense revoke = can still cycle, but not on public roads.

 

Priority should be 1st to make cyclist using pulic roads accountable & responsible. Revenue is secondary.

 

Why is there a need for COE for bicycles? Are bicycles causing congestion? If the govt is promoting cycling as an alternative mode of transport to private cars, I don't think they will want to do that.

 

Isn't road tax based on emissions or engine size? If the bicycle doesn't produce any pollutants when in use or doesn't have an engine why have road tax for bicycles?

 

ERP will be quite hard to enforce since bicycles are allowed on PCN or footpaths if they push them. So a cyclist can just cycle near the gantry and dismount before pushing it somewhere after the gantry and rejoin traffic.

 

For the license, insurance and demerit points, IMO it will be hard to enforce but then at least it will make drivers aware that cyclists belong to the road and make cyclists happier.

[inlinesix]

Since you try to engage the points, here's the rebuttal

Again, lack of enforcement does not mean that a gap in legislation should not be plugged. A road user's behaviour is his/her OWN decision and not a result of TPs presence.

 

On the other hand, regardless of enforcement or not, the psychological aspect of being open to be traced can help to discourage those who may be tempted to break the rules. Eg. Drivers who give the middle finger risk being called up if that act and his car number plate was caught on camera and the other party has the pocket to pursue a case. Anyone receiving a cyclist's middle finger, even if caught on camera and have the means to pursue a civil case, can only LLST

 

THAT is the biggest imbalance that exist for not licensing/registering cyclists.

 

If your point is that there is enough TP presence. Car, motorcycles, lorries, trucks etc .. can all be without license plates, just as cyclists

If your point is that there is not enough TP presence. The cyclists need to be just as traceable as all other road users

 

 

I honestly do not see what's the point/contradiction that you are trying to paint here. But fundamentally, YOU chose to cycle. If you have a problem following the rules that govern cyclists, that does not make it right for you to break/bend them.

 

This excuse is just as sound for someone who works in Lim Chu Kang Lane 3 and justifying his driving at 120km/hr along Lim Chu Kang Road to and from work daily

 

You are right. You are an ordinary person, using the common resource as everyone else. In this case, other road users. Do not expect extraordinary concessions/treatment.

Like i said b4, if u 1 2 prove me wrong, cycle daily to work for a mth. Make sure u follow all the rules hor.

 

Why do cars/motorcycles/trucks/lorries need minimum 3rd party liability covers?

 

What wrong with driving 120km/h along Lim Chu Kang? Other than breaking the law, is it safety hazard to others?

confirm can be done. Remember how they enforced the ban on bicycles with mini 2 stroke engines. For starters, the new rules should be for those cycling on public roads. Not at parks, trekking paths, cycling paths at east coast...etc.

 

1) Compulsory to pass traffic theory test. License

2) COE ? Is there a frame number on the bicycle? Maybe start at $1 like how it started for moto.

3) Road Tax. Maybe start with like how moto was long ago. $20/year

4) Insurance

5) ERP ( 1/2 the rate for moto )

6) Demerit Point system. Liciense revoke = can still cycle, but not on public roads.

 

Priority should be 1st to make cyclist using pulic roads accountable & responsible. Revenue is secondary.

LOL!! Revenue is always No.1 KPI.

 

Edited October 14, 2013 by Davidtch

[Scoots]

Like i said b4, if u 1 2 prove me wrong, cycle daily to work for a mth. Make sure u follow all the rules hor.

 

Why do cars/motorcycles/trucks/lorries need minimum 3rd party liability covers?

 

What wrong with driving 120km/h along Lim Chu Kang? Other than breaking the law, is it safety hazard to others?

 

Falling back to your old habits again,

 

Unable hold stand, challenge ppl to be 'in your shoes'

 

Ask questions without within (again) stating a position... tsk tsk ...

 

 

Try this:

I drive to work daily. I follow the rules. If I can do that, why can't you? YOU chose your mode of transportation, I CHOSE mine. Just because you want to cycle means you are justifies to bend/break the rules? Siow ... so much for 'ordinary person' .... try SELFISH person. THAT's more apt to describe you.

 

But I must say,

 

What wrong with driving 120km/h along Lim Chu Kang? Other than breaking the law, is it safety hazard to others?

 

This one take's the cake! .... Sums up your attitude completely.

 

You have NO regard to the rules that is laid down for all road users because you place your OWN judgement above all else. Complacency ... One fine day it, besides breaking the law, WILL be a safety hazard to others

 

funny that you should endorse that 120kn/hr on Lim Chu Kang Road. Again, I don't think this is something that the cycling community would endorse either

Edited October 14, 2013 by Scoots

[Pisces69]

Good or not - I dunno

 

Enforceable - Almost certainly not

 

And not enforceable means essentially worthless

 

Its just a matter if the gharmen wan to enforce or not.

 

As long as can collect money from fines n amt is big enough....then u see there wil b special squards doing ambush duty on bicycles breaking the rules.

 

In the end its all about money money money.

[Pisces69]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqIkWLvOiXE

 

There is a funny hitler video on bicycle registration.

 

Actually many countries got try before, many failed... Primarily cost outweigh revenue... But of course just charge more loh...this one I think singapore can do.

 

 

Very nice video.

 

I wonder if anyone made a video of our PM discussing SG taxes n revenue collection with his ministers?

 

Wil it b something like this video?

[Zyklon]

Implementation is not actually that difficult.

 

Every bicycle that is to be cycled on the road will require license plate, and thus, a form of insurance and road tax, pegged to personal NCD. Cyclist on the road will need cycling license, with demerit point tagged to the current driving license.

 

How do you know the bicycles is registered?

Ans: Based on the number plate.

 

How do you know if the cyclist has a license?

Ans: Random checks. If caught cycling without license, penalty and fine is as good as driving without valid license.

 

What if I want to bring my children to cycle at the park?

Ans: Only bicycles that are cycled on roads must be registered. Bicycles for usage at recreation parks and cycling routes need not.

 

How do I bring my bicycles to the parks and cycling routes then, especially if I don't have a car?

Ans: Bicycles that are without license plates can be pushed on foot path or across the road. At no moment, should the rider be on the bicycle. Cyclists may use the park connectors to travel from one park to another, without the need for a valid license.

 

Isn't this scheme meant to disadvantage riders?

Ans: This scheme is to protect riders who use the roads. In the event of accidents, cyclist are fully covered with the insurance. In the unlikely and unfortunate event of hit and run, the cyclist are allowed to do OD claim. It allows hobbyist to pursue their cycling interest, while encouraging responsible cycling.

 

Will people abuse OD claim?

Ans: All incidents involving personal damage will require police report and increased NCD.

 

The key is, only register those that need to, not every single tom dick and harry who has a bicycle. Put reasonable, but appropriate charges to it.

[Pisces69]

 

To tell you the truth, I wouldn't rely on the police agencies' knowledge of the law. They've been caught out many times.

 

That's why it remains valuable to complain (kpkb) to the press and "higher powers" - at least that way, the police actually have to research the law (or get someone in the legal profession to interpret it for them) before making a statement or taking some action.

 

The most probable reason for the police to have put up those signs is because it's their standard MO (or SOP) - if there are accidents, put up cautionary signs. If the accidents involve cyclists, put up those particular signs warning people there are cyclists around. Note that the signs didn't explicitly say cycling is fully legal there, they're merely advisories. It's like those signs warning of "Camera Zones" or "Acccident Area" - if people were fully compliant with traffic law and weren't speeding and were driving alertly, there wouldn't be a need for those signs at all. Yet they remain.

 

Reading tru some of the more extreme posts(pros n cons), I think yours is a much more balanced line of thought which makes more sense than those with extreme thinking on cyclists rights.

 

Lets put it this way. There r many good law abiding cyclists out there but there r also quite a few irresponsible muther farkers who ride like ty own the blardy roads n deserve to end up under the wheels of a truck.

 

Lets just hope Darwins theory of evoloution works n those irresponsible cyclists all get killed n eventually become extinct like the dinosours. Hahaha.

[1fast1]

 

Reading tru some of the more extreme posts(pros n cons), I think yours is a much more balanced line of thought which makes more sense than those with extreme thinking on cyclists rights.

 

Lets put it this way. There r many good law abiding cyclists out there but there r also quite a few irresponsible muther farkers who ride like ty own the blardy roads n deserve to end up under the wheels of a truck.

 

Lets just hope Darwins theory of evoloution works n those irresponsible cyclists all get killed n eventually become extinct like the dinosours. Hahaha.

 

Thanks, bro, for your kind words. Didn't stop me from getting "junked" by the more rabid pro-cyclists here.

 

Let me reiterate my stance - I actually have very little against cyclists who ride responsibly. But when I see that small number of black sheep act tough on our roads - like that blardy ang moh who was seen taunting the car and holding up traffic recently - I can't help but wish that we had a way of tracking and punishing these idiots. Hence the need for bike plates - otherwise some cyclists think they can get away with bloody murder.

[Pisces69]

 

Thanks, bro, for your kind words. Didn't stop me from getting "junked" by the more rabid pro-cyclists here.

 

Let me reiterate my stance - I actually have very little against cyclists who ride responsibly. But when I see that small number of black sheep act tough on our roads - like that blardy ang moh who was seen taunting the car and holding up traffic recently - I can't help but wish that we had a way of tracking and punishing these idiots. Hence the need for bike plates - otherwise some cyclists think they can get away with bloody murder.

 

I think I hv exactly the same thoughts as u.

 

I hv almost hit those (usually) young cyclists who ride damm fast n shoot across the pedestrian crossing without slowing down n looking if there r cars approaching.

 

If I was not alert to jam brakes (n risk getting rear ended by the vehicle behind me) I wud hv hit the idiot n then where wud I be? In a blardy big heap of sheet n go tru the hassle of proving I was not in the wrong.

 

I had some even riding against the flow of traffic in the middle of the road in the early hours when no cars around n when ty see me coming at the last minute, wil swerve out of my way. What makes it worse is ty dun even have any lights to make them visible at night.

[Jman888]

 

I think I hv exactly the same thoughts as u.

 

I hv almost hit those (usually) young cyclists who ride damm fast n shoot across the pedestrian crossing without slowing down n looking if there r cars approaching.

 

If I was not alert to jam brakes (n risk getting rear ended by the vehicle behind me) I wud hv hit the idiot n then where wud I be? In a blardy big heap of sheet n go tru the hassle of proving I was not in the wrong.

 

I had some even riding against the flow of traffic in the middle of the road in the early hours when no cars around n when ty see me coming at the last minute, wil swerve out of my way. What makes it worse is ty dun even have any lights to make them visible at night.

the most impressive ones are those that can do balancing act, with tabao food, umbrella, I ever saw one who carry a trolley on one hand !!

[inlinesix]

Falling back to your old habits again,

 

Unable hold stand, challenge ppl to be 'in your shoes'

 

Ask questions without within (again) stating a position... tsk tsk ...

 

 

Try this:

I drive to work daily. I follow the rules. If I can do that, why can't you? YOU chose your mode of transportation, I CHOSE mine. Just because you want to cycle means you are justifies to bend/break the rules? Siow ... so much for 'ordinary person' .... try SELFISH person. THAT's more apt to describe you.

 

But I must say,

This one take's the cake! .... Sums up your attitude completely.

 

You have NO regard to the rules that is laid down for all road users because you place your OWN judgement above all else. Complacency ... One fine day it, besides breaking the law, WILL be a safety hazard to others

 

funny that you should endorse that 120kn/hr on Lim Chu Kang Road. Again, I don't think this is something that the cycling community would endorse either

I always challenge u to be in my shoe because i know that u will nvr prove me wrong. Come on, prove me wrong.

 

How do u know me breaking the law cause safety hazard? Come & ride me to find out lor.

 

I did not endorce driving 120km/h on LCK. But what is wrong with it? Is it safety hazard?

 

Lastly, are you sure u r not SELFISH? I would not dare to say i am not selfish.