JE: "the microchip would be on a register to link it to the owner, as with pets."I understand how it works - my own cat is chipped. But my point is, if someone finds a stray cat, he/she can take it to a vet to be identified.But if a cyclist knocks over a pedestrian, who is actually going to retrieve the bike in order to get it scanned? Not the cyclist, that's for sure - he/she will be proceeding on his/her merry way, without anyone being able to do a thing.Oh and btw, this is all predicated on people chipping their bikes. Responsible owners will do so (in order to track if stolen etc). But there are literally millions of bikes out there, of all types and ages, often belonging to kids. How in practice do the authorities monitor whether bikes are chipped or not?And how do you tie a particular rider to any given bike? People borrow bikes all the time, or sell/gift them to others, without it being registered anywhere.And even if a cyclist does knock someone over, and the police subsequently find the bike (how?), how do they prove that the registered owner was actually riding it at the time? Or that it was his/her fault, rather than the predestrian's fault for wandering out on the road?And those are just a few drawbacks that I, a "bear of little brain", can figure out myself after a couple of minutes thought. There must be very more. Which explains why the police never show any interest in licencing/chipping bicycles.I mean, when did you last even see a bobby on a bike lol?
Richard Cathcart ● 1743d