Registration of cyclists

[fireheart17]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/s...-1225938388284

This article doesn't relate directly to the idea, but whenever this sort of article comes up, the first thing that comes out of people's mouths is "cyclists need to be registered."

Yes I can understand the frustration when cyclists decide to take up the whole road, or do something completely stupid. BUT, don't forget that fully licensed drivers will do the same thing as well-they'll cut off other motorists, they'll speed through red lights and complain when they receive a fine and what about two cars that cause a crash? They're registered, so registering =/= better driver.
Furthermore, I do believe that most cyclists own a car and therefore pay registration anyway.

Your thoughts?

[BlaqueKatt]

Furthermore, I do believe that most cyclists own a car and therefore pay registration anyway.

Your thoughts?

I do not own a car-my husband does he pays $80/year registration.

For the five bikes I own-city license=$20
Trail Pass=$10

$30x5=$150-hey I'm paying MORE than a car driver in registration fees.

Pedestrians do stupid things too-do we need to register everyone or they can't leave their houses

[dendawg]

My beliefs for two-wheeled motorized vehicles:

Mlopeds/Scooters under 50cc: sticker with helmet mandatory and insurance optional.

Motorcycles/Scooters over 50cc: Registration and insurance optional, helmets optional, with much higher insurance rights for non helmet wearers.

[linguist]

$30x5=$150-hey I'm paying MORE than a car driver in registration fees.

this is a faulty comparison; you're comparing five vehicles to one. if your husband owned five cars, he'd pay far more in registration fees than you do.

[Jack]

My beliefs for two-wheeled motorized vehicles:

Mlopeds/Scooters under 50cc: sticker with helmet mandatory and insurance optional.

Motorcycles/Scooters over 50cc: Registration and insurance optional, helmets optional, with much higher insurance rights for non helmet wearers.

I don't get it. You want people who drive little <50cc mopeds to have a mandatory helmet and insurance law, but people with more powerful bikes don't have to wear a helmet and have insurance? Seems bass ackward.

[blas87]

Motorcyclists and cyclists should be required to wear helmets and any protective gear, since it's now a fineable offense for a motorist to be caught not wearing a seatbelt.

I rarely, if ever, see motorcyclists or cyclists wearing helmets. With the motorcyclists, all I can think of is, if you get going fast enough and there's an accident.....your brains go smoosh.

[Andara Bledin]

Motorcyclists and cyclists should be required to wear helmets and any protective gear, since it's now a fineable offense for a motorist to be caught not wearing a seatbelt.

There are radically different forces at work.

If a person in a vehicle doesn't wear a seatbelt, they have the potential to cause death and injury to other occupants or contribute to loss of control of the vehicle.

If a person on a motorbike doesn't wear a helmet, they do not pose any greater or lesser threat to others for the omission.

I, personally, am not quite sure where I stand on helmets, but I know for a fact that I won't start the vehicle if anyone isn't properly buckled up, and I won't ride in the same car, either.

^-.-^

[Lace Neil Singer]

Couldn't agree more. It's one of my pet hates when in summer, I see people riding motorbikes, sometimes really powerful ones, in shorts and t-shirts with no gloves. Just cuz it's summer, the road doesn't get any softer.

Btw, it's illegal round here to ride a motorbike helmetless. I don't see anyone crying about that law. O_o

As for cyclists; if cyclists had to pay road tax, then they could bitch about sharing the road.

[Ginger Tea]

As for cyclists; if cyclists had to pay road tax, then they could bitch about sharing the road.

share the pavement you mean?
where I live we have a high cyclist population and I'm one of the few that
A> rides in the cycle lane and not on the pavement reagrdless of pedestrians
B> stops at a red light esp pedestrian lights, yet the ammount of times I've nearly been run over crossing the road with a green man telling me its safe to do so

I have lights but as its afaik not mandatory to have a helmet I forgo it, although I do have a purple and black check germanesque helmet that could pass as one (it alteast looks better than a propper cycle helmet)

[Lace Neil Singer]

No, "Share the road!" is a typical bitch from the lycra louts round here. They want to be included as traffic and demand the right of way, regardless of whether they deserve it or not.

Btw, that doesn't apply to all cyclists, merely the dickheads who break the laws of the road (ie, jumping red lights) and ignore the cycle lanes in order to ride with traffic.

As a motorcyclist, I put my own safety above my own rights sometimes. If someone charges towards me in a car, I'll yield the right of way cuz I don't want to end up as a red stain on the tarmac.

[Dreamstalker]

There's a pending law here in MA requiring any scooter that is capable of a certain speed to have a license plate (motorcycles already have this) in addition to the existing registration sticker. I'm fine with that (and would support extending it to bicycles as well); I can't keep track of the number of times some idjit on a scooter/bicycle almost mows me down in a crosswalk.

A license plate would make it easier to report when the owner is breaking the law (yes, cyclists/scooters are expected to obey traffic laws, but the scofflaws know that their being caught is unlikely).

[BlaqueKatt]

As for cyclists; if cyclists had to pay road tax, then they could bitch about sharing the road.

This always comes up and kinda shows ignorance/arrogance.

see page 7 of the pdf linked below

$27.9 billion spent on local roads
$3.1 billion revenue from user fees

guess where the rest came from?

summary of the handy chart on page 10 of the pdf

2 people each pay $300 per year in taxes that fund roads
Motorist drives 10,000 miles
Cyclist rides 3,000 mile

motorist has underpaid for his usage by $236
Cyclist has overpaid by $252

again who's paying for the roads?


in the US roadways are mainly paid for by local taxes-guess what-I'm not exempt from paying those because I ride a bicycle. And since my 15 pound bicycle does no damage to the roadway requiring less upkeep/maintenance-so I'm way overpaying my share.

At $20-40 million dollars per mile, vehicle and gas taxes don't even begin to cover highway costs. Local streets are mostly paid for from local property & sales taxes. Overall, the USDOT estimates every car gets a $3000+ subsidy every year.

more info here

[fireheart17]

OK, bit more information from an Aussie view since I see that there's stuff coming up about helmet laws:

-It has been compulsory for bicyclists, motorcyclists and anyone riding a moped/scooter to wear a helmet. failure to do so attracts a fine.
-If you own a car, trailer, motorcycle or scooter/moped, you're required to register it (I think the same deal also applies to private buses and trucks). It's admittedly cheaper to register a trailer, than it is to register a car. Car rego is determined by the number of cylinders (so a 4-cylinder car pays less than a 6-cylinder for example).
-There are several bike lanes around Adelaide, however if there are none, cyclists are required to ride as far to the left-hand side of the road as possible and are also required to follow all the usual requirements on the road-for instance, signalling their turns and intention to brake and so forth. Some cyclists will walk their bikes over pedestrian crossings, others will ride their bikes through the intersection like a normal person. In some cases, cyclists can ride two abreast, but otherwise it's a requirement that they ride single file.

I've seen instances where people will follow the laws and where they don't. What I HAVE noticed however, is that the "Share the Road" calls come from groups rather than from single cyclists.

[BlaqueKatt]

cyclists are required to ride as far to the left-hand side of the road as possible

possible or practicable?

big difference-the laws usually state practicable but most people think it reads or is synonymous with possible-this is not the case.

It is possible for me to ride my bike just inches from the curb-however due to storm drains, parked cars, road debris it is by no means practicable for me to do so. I could also ride right next to the parked cars instead of taking the lane, and risk being thrown into traffic when some guy opens his car door without looking-again riding like that is possible but not practicable.


Also car drivers cannot see the road hazards a cyclist may face as a big deal(storm drains, a plastic soda bottle/cup can flip a bicycle, so can a large rock none of these would be visible from a car nor would they affect a car)-so to them the cyclist isn't obeying the "law"-they aren't as far to the left as possible, but in reality are abiding by the law and riding as far left as practicable.

Possible-that may or can be, exist, happen, be done, be used

Practicable-capable of being done, effected, or put into practice, with the available means; feasible

[MadMike]

As a driver, I've seen cyclists do some pretty stupid shit.

At the same time, however, I can't help thinking this idea is nothing more than yet another money grab. Call my cynical towards politcians. They all suck.