You are a born dictator, wanting everyone to conform to your opinion of what is right. We once had more of your sort of clear and enforced legislation and in the late 1950s it completely killed what had briefly been a highly successful assisted cycling market.
Then that strictness went on to severely damage and greatly reduce the scooter and light motorcycle market, and as people got better off they migrated into cars, the strict laws helping to create today's car packed, cycling unfriendly roads.
But eventually these truths started to sink in and we began to ease off. First in the early 1970s we introduced easier pedelec law, but it was still too strictly defined, so we tried again in 1980. But that still had too much limitation keeping the market very small, so finally we eased off much further in 2013 and 2015, creating the larger, more successful market we have now through the flexible rules you hate.
And this wasn't only in pedelecing. The packed and cycling hostile roads we created by getting everyone into cars had left our vast network of pavements largely empty, so it made sense for cyclists to use that empty space too by allowing it.
So we redefined cycling law by ruling in year 2000 that cycling on the pavement was illegal with fixed penalties, but at the same time telling all police forces that cyclists could use the pavements when in fear of traffic. Since the police had no fear measuring instruments, that meant always, which is why they ignore pavement cycling.
In moped law too we eased off later, successfully re-expanding that market after the damage done to it by excessive law in1990.
What I'm illustrating to you is the huge damage that strict and well defined law can do and the good that flexibility can bring. You seem blind to that with your obsession with certification and wanting to take us backwards.
Fortunately you won't succeed, since as I've shown above, we now know the value of flexibility in law and act accordingly.
.
Last edited:
