Should bicyclists be required to have a license, registration, insurance, etc?

[-..__...]

Basically... be required to comply with any and all requirements automobile owners have to contend with.

[taterguy]

1. As soon as bikes can cause as much damage as cars

Or as soon as bicycles are as heavily subsidized as automobiles.

[JackRiddler]

126. Should totalitarian fantasists be required to stay the hell off the Web?

[PM7nj]

2. No.

[Xipe Totec]

3. I don't see the reason.

Might as well require a license and registration to walk.

[-..__...]

12. If bicyclists have a legal right to use public roads...

They should be required to help pay for the costs/privilege by paying the fees and/or taxes associated for maintaining those roads.

To the best of my knowledge, pedestrians seldom cause accidents that cause injury to anyone other than themselves.

If a bicyclist is injured through their own recklessness or stupidity, they should be obligated to be insured to help cover medical expenses.

[here_is_to_hope]

22. And your donor star is where? yeah....n/t

[-..__...]

48. For starters...

this is a privately owned and run resource.

I'm sure if Skinner had wanted to he could just as well make the entire site pay to play, but that's his call.

FWIW... I did have my "donor star" for a number of years, but for whatever reason, I just let it lapse.

The downside on my end is that I have limited forum capabilities.

You think this thread started a minor controversy?

Start one suggesting that all players have to anti-up. :hide:

[Xipe Totec]

23. Pedrestrians use sidewalks, maintained with public funds.

In fact, many Winter accidents involve pedestrians walking on roads meant for vehicular traffic.

[-..__...]

53. "Maintained with public funds" ?

at least here in MA, the reason people walk in the road after a snow storm is that home owners (private), didn't clear the snow from publicly owned sidewalks as required by law.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

63. Well, quite often the sidewalks aren't even plowed in front of businesses

and public buildings around here. The residential areas aren't usually the high traffic areas.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

24. By this argument, why shouldn't pedestrians be required to have insurance?

If a bicyclist is injured through their own recklessness or stupidity, they should be obligated to be insured to help cover medical expenses.

They key thing I'm reading is this:

If a bicyclist is injured through their own recklessness or stupidity...

Versus this:

...pedestrians seldom cause accidents that cause injury to anyone other than themselves.

Is this not the same thing the bicyclist in your scenario has done?

[-..__...]

36. Sorry...

I mistyped on that one.

What I meant to post is if a bicyclist injures someone else through their own recklessness or stupidity, they should be obligated to be insured to help cover medical expenses for the injured party.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

41. I disagree anyway...

By requiring insurance, (which I imagine will have to be pretty cheap for a bike or it will just be laughable), won't it be easier for a reckless bicyclist to cover the costs of their own recklessness?

Why not just do a better job of enforcing traffic laws for bicyclists?

I guess what it boils down to for me is, yes I know there are accidents involving bicyclists, but I also bet they are nowhere near on the level of automobilies, or as deadly statistics-wise, and we are getting to a point where we must go greener in everything we do. Do we really want to come up with ways to discourage a greener form of transportation?

[djg21]

117. No. Stupid idea.

Most cyclists also own cars and pay local property and gasoline taxes, tolls, etc. which pay for road maintenance. To taxes bicycles, which cause little,if any, wear and tear on roads, would be excessive, and would discourage the use of bicycles as an alternative to automobiles. Moreover, most cyclists should already have medical insurance (the lack of medical benefits is an indicator of a larger problem). Many also have homeowners' and/or auto insurance. When I was hit on a bike by a senior citizen with minimal insurance coverage, my no-fault auto and supplemental uninsured motorist coverage paid for my medical (4 weeks in an ICU -- the old man's coverage was exhausted after less than a day in the hospital).

Cyclists are very rarely the problem. In virtually all of the states, they are subject to applicable vehicle and traffic laws. Rather, the problem is caused by discourteous drivers who think that cyclists shouldn't be on the road, and are bothered that they might have to slow down and yield for a cyclist until safe to pass (especially when the cyclists don't pay taxes).

BTW, if a cyclist is injured through his/her own "recklessness or stupidity," what makes you think that they would not be responsible for their own medical expenses? The suggestion that someone else would be responsible is unfounded and just plain stupid.

[canetoad]

4. No

They should be required to comply with no more or less than pedestrians including adherence to all highway codes if they choose to ride on public roads.

[tomreedtoon]

5. Having been run over several times by mad bikers, YES.

They need to have enforced rules of the road. And one of them is, when you approach someone from the rear on the sidewalk, sound a damn bell or horn or buzzer or something to warn the person that you're approaching. I have gotten clobbered TWICE by people who were too cheap or clueless to have bells.

[wryter2000]

7. They are required to follow the rules of the road

A friend got a ticket for an illegal turn on a bike once. I'm sure they're not as vigorously watched, but as others have pointed out, you stand a much better chance of surviving a collision with a bike than with a car.

[Clear Blue Sky]

32. Bikers frequently run stop signs and red lights.

[Giant Robot]

142. Really at this point I would be happy if they followed the law

I frequently see bikers going through lights and stop signs during the summer months here. I think it creates a huge hazard, but hell I drive, so I'm the devil.

[fed_up_mother]

9. Cyclists SHOULD NOT be on the sidewalk!

EVER. My cousin sustained brain damage from a cyclist on a sidewalk. She was in a coma for almost seven days, although she's a capable, working young woman now, but she'll probably never be the same. :(

[virgogal]

20. I'm with you. There is an area in a business district near me where

walking on the sidewalk is as dangerous as walking on the street-----and these are adults riding the bikes,not young kids.

So sorry about your cousin.

[fed_up_mother]

25. I would treat cyclists on sidewalks the same way we treat drunk drivers

It's against the law to ride on the sidewalk, but people do so, anyway. UGH

[Mika]

115. Cycling on sidewalks is legal in Florida.

I'm constantly told to get off the road by cagers who then try to (and sometimes do) run me off of the road. I get even at the next traffic stop - a call to the cops with license plate #s.

-

[Deja Q]

123. Ditto for jaywalkers.

There are laws, which pedestrians don't always follow.

And they can be just as culpable.

Of course, how do the rules get enforced if the people themselves won't bother? That's what worries me.

[Greyhound]

128. How would this stop them from running you over? n/t

[woodsong100]

6. "Should bicyclists be required to have a license, registration, insurance, etc?

Hell no!

[Winterblues]

8. Why can't I sell booze without a license?

I think bicycles are not too far away from having licensing and possibly insurance...maybe seatbelts as well.. :shrug:

[slampoet]

102. Are you drunk or did you flunk physics? Seatbelts?

[Obamanaut]

108. There was a thread endorsing seat belts for bicycles here not too

long ago. I attributed it to the musty air in the basement.

[Maine-ah]

113. they should have airbags installed too.....

:hide:

[Shardik]

10. Well, if they use the public highways they should pay their fare share.

I have seen accidents occur due to someone swerving to avoid a bicyclist.

[taterguy]

16. What's fair?

Currently cyclists pay plenty for roads since roads are built with a lot of money from income, sales and property taxes that everyone pays.

How much should cyclists pay?

I'd like a specific number.

[Shardik]

42. Well, I have to pay a rate less than for my car for my scooter

and insurance is way cheaper for the scoot. I would imagine they would need to affix a sort of advelorum tax as they do for other vehicles. I would imagine less than what a person would pay for a 50cc scooter and that's different in every state.

[taterguy]

44. Did they never teach you the meaning of the word 'specific' when you went to school?

[Shardik]

47. It would be impossible to do that as each state would have a different

amount charged for licensing, just as insurance has a different charge for different models and makes of cars and other vehicles.

Why the hostility?

[taterguy]

96. Sorry, I was a little wasted last night

My hostility stems from this notion that cyclists don't pay their fair share.

The fact is that the amount the government spends on services for automobiles vastly exceeds the revenues that the government exclusively collects from motorists.

The problem is that no one knows exactly what the number is nor can we agree on how to calculate it. How do we put a price tag on the environmental damage done by cars or the wars we fight to insure our supply of oil.

OTOH, how much of an economy would we have if no one used cars?

In a perfect world we would have basic information about the costs of various modes of transportation:

It costs the government X amount of dollars when someone travels a mile in a car,
X amount when they walk,
X amount when they bike.

That should be the basis for any rational discussion on this topic.

Alas this is a very imperfect world. I think I'll go take a long bike ride to ponder this. I promise to obey all traffic laws. Well, most of them anyway.

[Shardik]

107. No problem. I hope you enjoy your ride. n/t

[taterguy]

109. I wussed out and took a nap instead

I hate getting old

[Shardik]

110. Yeah, getting old ain't for pussies.

:)

[taterguy]

114. I'm an asshole, not a pussy

At least according to several people on this site

:toast:

[Shardik]

121. LOL...

Aww hell. Maybe a jerk but not an asshole. (JK) :toast:

[taterguy]

129. In real life I'm a very polite cyclist

I don't speed on bike paths and I use this cheerful horn to let people on foot know that I'm approaching them from behind.

[Shardik]

130. Oh yeah? Pictures? Here's my mean two wheeler.

[taterguy]

139. Which one are you in the pic?

:shrug:

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

65. I would think most people that ride bikes also drive cars

so they are most likely already paying these taxes. I supposed kids would be the exception, but do you really want to tax little kids?

[djg21]

118. Not the fault of the cyclists!

The motorists were obligated to slow and wait for an opportunity when it would be safe to pass the cyclist. If they swerved, either they were not paying attention, or refused to wait until an appropriate time to pass. In either case, the motorist was negligent.

[treestar]

140. But then should they get credit for the pollution they are avoiding?

If it is nonrecreational, at least.

[depakid]

11. Bicyclists should be required to wear helmets

and I wouldn't be opposed to a small surcharge (tax) on new bike sales, with the revenue dedicated to bike paths and lanes.

[tkmorris]

15. Now THAT seems eminently reasonable

[Mika]

116. We should be motivating people to ride, not demotivating people.

Try riding a bike to work and tell me you aren't "paying" for it! The suvs and trucks are getting bigger and bigger and there's virtually no bike lanes where I live (Miami).

We should be taxing the elements doing egregious damage to the environment (to build infrastructure that doesn't) and providing tax stimuli to those who don't.

People should get a tax credit for cycling more and using their cars less.

I ride about 15,000 a year, several thousand are my commute to work - daily, rain or shine.

A license? Hell.. cyclists should get a medal!

[JackRiddler]

127. Wear one yourself. This is none of your business.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

13. Why increase regulation for people to ride bikes?

Will that not discourage people from considering them as a possible alternative for vehicle commuting?

Why not find a way to offer some kind of tax break for those who can demonstrate they use their bicycle to commute to work if they are able?

Then increase costs of vehicle license and registration slightly to cover the cost of the tax break, or even to pay for bike lanes and a program of encouraging bicycle use as a viable alternative?

[taterguy]

17. The Bicycle Commuter Act went into effect yesterday

Employers can take money off their tax bill and pass it on to employees who commute by bike.

I haven't actually read the law but I saw a blurb about in US News & World Report.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

28. Link to the text...

http://www.bikeleague.org/news/100708adv.php

I had no idea this was law until you mentioned it.

[taterguy]

34. It's not like cyclists have a big advertising budget

I just can't wait to see if my HR can be convinced to go along with it.

[-..__...]

29. Irrelevant.

If bicyclist expect fair use of public roads then they should be obligated to help pay for the maintenance and upkeep.

It's unfair that automobile owners should bear the sole responsibility.

If bike lanes/paths are desirable, then by all means bicyclists should be required to contribute to the costs.

[taterguy]

31. Since when don't cyclists pay for the maintenance and upkeep of roads?

Do you have any idea of how roads are built and paid for in this country?

[JeffreyWilliamson]

38. If a person participates in a marathon...

What should they be taxed for upkeep of the public roads they are using? Not to mention putting commuters out by having the city shut those roads for traffic, costing the rest of us in gas?

Why can't encouraging a greener commuting philosophy by encouraging bicycle use not be a way to pay for those bicycle lanes? Why not increase gas taxes very slightly to cover the cost and discourage so much driving?

That may not seem fair to vehicle drivers, but on its surface it sounds a lot smarter in the long run that discouraging bicycling as alternative transportation.

[frylock]

75. how much damage do you think a 30lb bike plus a 180lb rider cause to roads?!

this is fucking ridiculous!! for real!!! i ride an MTB, so i don't even require maintenance and upkeep. but to get back to my original thought; this is fucking ridiculous!!

[-..__...]

83. It's called 'free loading"...

sure, you don't mind. Let others pay for the privileged access you enjoy.

Next time a town or community meeting comes up to suggest bike lanes/paths, I guess I'll be there speaking out against any such measure.

If I'm not allowed to drive on it, I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for it's construction, maintenance and upkeep.

[frylock]

86. your license fees and insurance payments contribute to the creation of bike paths?!

cmon man. fucking ridiculous. try again.

[-..__...]

90. This was the post you were responding to...

"bicyclist expect fair use of public roads then they should be obligated to help pay for the maintenance and upkeep.

It's unfair that automobile owners should bear the sole responsibility.

If bike lanes/paths are desirable, then by all means bicyclists should be required to contribute to the costs."

Licensing fees and insurance are another issue.

Perhaps it's different where you live, but here in MA, a motor vehicle excise tax is applied which does go towards road maintenance and repair.

[taterguy]

105. You're not allowed to drive on the Intercoastal Waterway either

Well, I'm not sure if there are laws prohibiting it but it's probably not a good idea.

[surrealAmerican]

120. This seems to ignore the fact that motor vehicles ...

... actually cause damage to roads making frequent "maintenance" necessary. Bicycles cause no such damage.

[pl259]

14. No, because the whole thrust of a truly Democratic society is to exempt certain

people from those kinds of unreasonable requirements.


Oh, wait............

[ixion]

18. No.

[yodoobo]

19. No.

Even an automobile drivers license is -barely- about safety.

You pass a 15 minute drivers check when you are 16, and then you are considered safe and government approved for 80 years (or more).

Sure you have to renew every few years, but that is only about revenue.

I can just imagine the process with a bike. Get your license at 6 after you can demonstrate that you can get to the end of your driveway without training wheels.

[FiveGoodMen]

21. I think we're missing the larger point here...

Over the past several decades, I've seen more people walking along the road than riding a bike on it.

You should have to get a license before you're allowed to walk.

[Lost-in-FL]

26. No.

I thinks bicyclists should have mandatory right of way also.

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. They should be ticketed for running red lights, that's for sure

It seems to be the absolute common practice for all bicyclists to run the red lights here in Chicago. Either you are a vehicle on the road, or you are not. I'm a little sick of the bicyclists constantly yelling at people to 'share the road," then turning around and violating every basic traffic law there is. Make up your minds, bikies. You either want to be a coequal vehicle on the road, or you do not. You can't be in it for the benefits but not the costs.

Why am I pissed? Because I'd really like to not KILL one of you when you're beating the lights and I'm expecting nobody to go through.

[depakid]

33. Rolling through stops is not a safety problem

but more like the usual bitching by the car addicted.

[-..__...]

43. Regardless...

it is the law and they have the same obligation to obey it just the same as any motorists.

If stopped for a violation, they should be subject to the same fines and penalties. Licensing and registration would at least
help identify and prosecute repeat offenders.

Sure... automobile drivers cause problems, but if caught, they pay the consequence in one form or another.

Not so with bike riders... they feel as if the law doesn't apply to them... like they're free wheeling rebels thumbing their noses at "the man".

I've seen motorists do plenty of stupid shit, but usually it's just stupid and not the kind of blatant finger in your face behavior I've seen from bicyclists (blowing straight through stop signs, red lights long after they've turned red, wrong way down a one way street, riding against traffic, etc).

You can't have it both ways... have a right to use public roads but have a different set of rules.

Don't like it... stay the fuck off the streets.

[depakid]

45. Both motorists and bikers do stupid shit

but rolling through stops on suburban backstreets isn't one of them....

Technically of course, you can be cited for it- but it almost never happens, because the cops use the rule of reason when they ticket people.

[-..__...]

49. "because the cops use the rule of reason".

or the rule of laziness.

If there was more of this... then I might not have as much of a reason to complain...

Cyclists pedal into arms of the law Cambridge riders find rules of road apply to them, too
.

CAMBRIDGE - He looked as carefree as can be, pedaling on his silver 18-speed mountain bike, wearing designer jeans and a black sport coat, a butterscotch leather handbag in his bicycle rack.

He had no idea that two Cambridge police officers were watching him from the side of the road with pads of tickets in their hands, waiting for him to break the law.

When the cyclist cruised through a red light, Officer Susan Kale stepped into the street, thrust out a hand, and waved him to a stop. Looking stunned, the man apologized and said he was new to town. Kale nodded and handed him a ticket - just a warning this time, though she could have slapped him with a $20 fine.

"Now you understand the rules of the road," she said firmly.

Many cyclists assume that they are exempt from the laws governing their motor-driven colleagues and have no cause to fear the officers who enforce them. The rules of the road, they say, are merely courtesies to be observed, or suggestions to keep them safe. Not so in Cambridge, where cyclists are increasingly being cited for any of dozens of violations, from running red lights or failing to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks to riding at night without a headlight.

Cambridge, which has built 37 miles of bike lanes, is contending with the flipside of its success in encouraging cycling. As the number of cyclists increases, police say they see more bikers blithely unaware that they are beholden to the same laws as drivers. The city has ticketed 952 cyclists this year (most of them warnings), up from 529 in all of last year and 718 in 2006.

Police say the unusual enforcement effort is an attempt to calm a war among cars, pedestrians, and cyclists, in which every side feels aggrieved.

More...

It's interesting to note that this was taking place in Cambridge, MA... easily one of the most bike/green friendly communities in the country.

[depakid]

52. Some places have assholes cops and city officials

Others don't.

And in states and municipalities facing revenue shortfalls- expect to see A LOT more petty ticketing on all sides.

I'm sure insurance companies will enjoy the boon-

[-..__...]

58. Situational awareness.

I'm not an exemplary driver, nor a crazy one; even though I'm a 35+ years Boston veteran of the roads.

Don't do blatantly stupid or "I don't give a fuck" shit or act like an asshole if nailed, keep your eyes and ears open and you won't get ticketed.

I can honestly say I've gotten 3 moving violations in all those years.. and all were rather minor.

[AllieB]

61. I work in Cambridge, grew up in the city, and agree that cyclists should obey the rules.

I have seen one cyclist killed in front of me-while I was on a bike in a bike lane in Cambridge. I saw another cyclist run a red light-also in Cambridge-and go over the hood of a car. These are things I never want to see again. I am glad that the Cambridge police are enforcing the road rules.

I don't think they should necessarily have to buy insurance. I think it should be voluntary. I've seen enough jackass pedestrians walking against lights in Cambridge and Boston that I think insurance should be available for cyclists who feel the need to protect themselves.

Boston and Cambridge are very densely populated with huge traffic problems, aggressive drivers, and cars parked on both sides of narrow 17th-century streets. Cyclists who don't respect the rules are suicidal.

[alcibiades_mystery]

98. Fucking awesome for Cambridge...Chicago has revenue issues

So maybe the police here will start doing the same. I would love to see these clowns pulled over en masse for running reds (since they run the reds en masse).

[alcibiades_mystery]

99. Suburban backstreets?

Nice dodge. I'm talking about busy urban areas. Specifically in my case, Chicago. You've magically transformed the subject from blowing red lights to "rolling through" "stops" on "suburban backstreets." What next? An abandoned intersection with perfect horizontal visibility in rural Kansas? :eyes:

[frylock]

76. staying within the speed limit is also the law..

can you post here, in all honesty, stating that you have NEVER exceeded the speed limit?

[-..__...]

81. Me?...

sure, I speed all the fucking time, but I keep it within my limitations subject to road and traffic conditions, and I don't do it recklessly, nor do I speed in a manner that would endanger myself or others... as in I'm not lane splitting/zipping in and out across moving traffic and I pull over to the right if someone wants to pass.

However... I'm not asking for any special treatment or wave-off because I drive a car; nor would I fault the law or anyone else if I got caught and fined.

It's my fault... I fucked up and I'll have to pay for it.

Why shouldn't bicyclists be held to the same standard?

It's not about what the law requires... it's about that it should be applied equally and fairly.

[frylock]

85. but this thread wasn't started by a cyclist griping because they were cited for blowing a stop..

i have been cited for that, and like you when you were ticketed for speeding, i had nobody to blame but myself. i don't see that anyone on this thread is looking to be held to a different standard. i just don't see why i should feel obligated to lose my momentum by coming to a complete stop, as long as it's done in a safe manner. if i get nailed by a police officer for doing that, well those are the risks i take.

[alcibiades_mystery]

79. Of course it's a safety problem

The last two bikers I heard of killed on the North Side ran red lights. It's asinine. As for "car addicted," I drive maybe three times a month, apart from short trips to the grocery store. I mostly take the El. The culture of impunity here is ridiculous. I'm happy to share the road when I drive. Now it's your turn to share the responsibilities of the road. You want to be a equal vehicle? Then follow the goddamn rules. I'm not even going to get into the assholes who fly the wrong way on a one way street. I suppose that's not a "safety problem" either with cars pulling out and no warning that some douchebag is about to appear directly in front of you where nobody should be.

[depakid]

84. It's not a safety problem per se

and bikes and car AREN'T equal vehicles- by their very nature.

Run a red without looking or in traffic- well, duh.

On suburban streets with high visability and no traffic- not a problem.

Hence my point in another post about the rule of reason.

[alcibiades_mystery]

97. Jesus Christ

You will come up with a million and one ways to avoid following the laws of the fucking road, all the while whining about how the "car addicts" don't respect your so-called rights.

[wellstone dem]

35. And from someone who bikes about 2000 miles a year

I obey all the rules of the road and have been hit once and nearly hit many times when I'm on a bike path, or on the road and drivers fail to look or yield. I always wear a helmet, always signal my turns, always alert walkers or slower bikers that I'm passing, and now, always stop for cars, even when I have the right of way.

And just like when I'm biking and I watch out for the crazy drivers, when I'm driving, I watch out for the crazy bikers.

[gravity]

30. Bicycles are self powered vehicles

they don't have the complexity and dangers of gas powered vehicles.

With that said, bicycles have to follow the rules of the road and have to comply to regulations depending on the area.

[madrchsod]

37. just obey the rules of the road...

[lib2DaBone]

39. Please don't give the politicians any ideas.....

[gratuitous]

40. I'd gladly pay for it

Although my auto insurance also covers me on my bike. But I'd love to see licensing and registration fees, which might mean the police taking bicycle theft seriously. Prominently displayed licenses might also keep my fellow cyclists a little more on the straight and narrow traffic-regulation-following-wise. When other cyclists blow through stop signs and red lights, it makes it so that I have to stop all the longer at intersections as cars are justifiably wary of just what the hell I might do. For the record, if you and I encounter each other at an intersection, treat me just as you would another motor vehicle. If I'm to your right, I get to go first. If you're there first, please GO! I don't want to have to stop completely and get moving from a dead stop. Thank you very much.

[Berry Cool]

50. Good points.

I'd have no problems with licensing cyclists simply to make them learn and take the rules of the road seriously. As it is, any fool can jump on a bike and take to the sidewalk or the streets and have no clue that he really doesn't belong on the sidewalk and that he has to obey the rules of the road on the street. Making cyclists pass a test would at least ensure that they had to study and know the rules, and licensing them might make them realize they might have to pay for violating them.

It's true that some cyclists want all the privileges of using the road and none of the responsibilities. They think they inhabit this lovely gray area where they can use the road to get somewhere but they don't have to stop at red lights or stop signs or signal what they're about to do. This is wrong and it gives responsible cyclists a bad name.

I have had that same problem when stopped at lights on a bike--worried drivers who either want me to go first when they have the right of way or who want to offer it to me politely because they somehow imagine they "owe" it to me as they would owe a pedestrian right of way in a crosswalk. No, they don't--the rule is the same for me as for them--if they are there first, on the right, they should go--if we both get mixed up as to whose right it is and both go, I'm gonna get the worst of it, but I don't want them to feel they have to wait for me.

Of course, then you have the drivers who just don't think cyclists belong on the road at all. They don't understand when a bike gets in the left turn lane, and they get really pissed when it gets in there ahead of them. Hello--how else am I supposed to make a left turn? No, I'm really not SUPPOSED to get off on the sidewalk and walk the bike across in the pedestrian crosswalk. I'm supposed to signal that I'm moving into the left turn lane, get in there (even if I beat cars behind me to it) and either turn or wait, with cars behind me, until the light lets me do so. If I am signaling my left turn, they have no bloody business being pissy about it.

[gratuitous]

69. Some drivers get all pissy about it

We've got a real strong cycling community in my city, and there is always a lot of discussion on radio, television and in the newspaper about cyclists and motorists. Awareness is pretty good. I find that if I'm aware of my surroundings (no headphones or earbuds), lighted, and I signal my intentions and move deliberately, I eliminate a goodly portion of motorist touchiness.

[rrneck]

46. Yes. Bikes share the road

with automobiles but I have seen bicyclists behave on those same roads like pedestrians. It's rare to see a car blow through a stop sign, but bikes do it all the time. They zip in and out of traffic, split lanes, cut in front of cars in downtown traffic and if you hit one of them while they indulge in those shenanigans there's hell to pay.

It's very difficult to regulate a vehicle that can't go as fast and exposes the operator to much more risk of injury in the event of an accident with a car, yet I have never heard of, never mind seen, anybody on a bike get a ticket for operating on a street in a way that would get an automobile driver pulled over before quick.

If they have to share the road with cars, they should share the responsibilities as well.

[csziggy]

51. We get lots of bicyclists on our narrow country road with no bike lanes

And I make every effort I can to pass them safely and courteously. So it pisses me off if they then pass me illegally on the right when I reach a stop sign or light.

On weekday evenings we get bevies of bicyclists on these roads - they will cruise along at half the speed limit on the multi-mile stretches with no passing zones. There can be ten or twenty cars stacked up behind them but the bicyclists will not pull over on side roads or driveways to allow the other traffic to pass. If I have to move my tractor from one location to another, I am required to pull over periodically to allow faster traffic to pass. The same should be true for bicyclists.

If these were commuters, I would be more understanding, but they are recreational bicyclists blocking the roads for dozens of people trying to get home after work.

[rrneck]

56. Yep. I live ten

miles up a road that with a two thousand foot elevation change with no bike lanes. The bikers love to ride up and down it for exercise and recreation. Unfortunately, they share the road with log trucks that have to come down that that same road with their brakes smoking. You can smell the burning clutches a mile away. I'd hate to be one of those drivers when he rounds a corner driving sixty thousand pounds of truck to find a gaggle of "sunday bicyclers" in front of him and another truck coming in the other direction.

[csziggy]

59. Exactly! My biggest irritation with bicyclists are the things they do that endanger THEM

But that they then blame on the motorist.

For instance, once I was driving though campus with a mandatory right turn lane on my right while I was on the through lane. Two bicyclists were in the turn lane and as I passed the end of the turn lane, they veered in front of me with no signal, no warning. I came within inches of running them both over. They screamed and yelled at me. Later I got a call from a campus cop, met with him at the location and told him what happened. Fortunately, he believed me - and my record of no accidents - and did not ticket me. But it could have been much worse. I hate to think how I would feel if I had hit the riders.

Now I drive around bicyclists the same way I do in zones where children might be. Cautiously with the knowledge that they may not pay attention to their surroundings and put themselves in danger.

[-..__...]

71. Like these holier than thou assholes...

who deliberately tie up and block traffic?...

http://critical-mass.info/

[XOKCowboy]

67. I figure my motorcycle tag and fuel taxes buys me at least 10' of the highway...

and I am willing to share the road with responsible riders. I only have problems with bicyclists who think that they should have all of the highway and don't have to follow normal traffic rules.

We were once on a motorcycle tour of the west and as we were approaching Crater Lake we encountered Ride Oregon. The road up to Crater Lake from the south is very tight and technical and we're riding loaded touring motorcycles. It was hard enough negotiating the road but had to deal with packs of bicyclists blocking the entire road, Greg LeMonde wannabes coming over the center line as they came back down in the other direction and even bunches of riders who were blocking driveways to the turnouts and attractions. Rudest people I've ever met.

I have no problem sharing the road with responsible bicyclists. Just remember that we paid to use the road and deserve some respect also.

[rrneck]

72. Yep. Bikes are going to be

really hard to regulate since they are slow and very vulnerable to everything else on the road. It may be that there will be some roads where bikes just can't go because it is too dangerous. Other roads will have to be reconfigured to include bike lanes and it wouldn't be a bad idea to come up with a way to give bike riders a tax advantage for riding them.

Of course, when we run out of oil it may be a moot point anyway.

[Bjorn Against]

54. No, we should encourage biking not discourage it.

We need to break our addiction to fossil fuels, and why the hell should a person have to send the insurance industry a check if they want to have the legal right to ride a bike?

[flvegan]

55. What's the age limit to ride a bike, then? Fucking brilliant.

What if, like with my Gary Fisher, it never sees the road?

[Naturyl]

57. Absolutely not.

Is there any limit to the number of regressive ideas we have to see on DU?

Think of how this would affect the poor, many of whom ride bicycles because they can't afford cars.

[-..__...]

68. Where the fuck do you live...

Beijing?

"Think of how this would affect the poor, many of whom ride bicycles because they can't afford cars.

Do you have any kind of statistical data to back this up, or is it from personal observation?

If you're correct... then apply a waiver or minimal fee for those below a certain income level or hardship.

As a demographic (bicyclists), the poverty cases probably rank pretty low on the percentage scale.

Regardless... that doesn't absolve or exempt them from personal liability, responsibility or compliance with the "rules of the road".

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

60. God NO! Should we be required to pay registration, insurance and get a license to walk?

We don't need more kinds of insurance. And paying a tax (registration) to ride a bike...that's ridiculous!

[bonito]

62. No but I think I can convince you to have one to think

LOL, just in fun dear one.

[blues90]

64. NO!

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

66. Self delete.

[fishwax]

70. No

[dweller]

73. yes, on the license & registration, and every cent collected

goes towards bike trails & bike lanes, period. Give the bikers a safe and efficient hiway. Get the cars out of their way for a change.

dp

[Liberal_in_LA]

74. Heck no! What's next, insurance required for joggers?

[-..__...]

77. "Joggers"?...

who the fuck posted anything about "joggers"?

Maybe we can tax or license them later, but for right now let's keep focused on the thread subject... m'kay?

"Joggers"... :eyes:

[Liberal_in_LA]

82. 'kay. lol.

[-..__...]

88. Once we take care of the joggers...

we need to do something about the skateboarders and inline skaters on the roadways.... actually, change that... skateboarders and inline skaters are a bigger hazard and drain on society than bicyclists and joggers.

There should be some sort of open season or community service award for bagging them. :smoke:

[frylock]

78. just another post from somebody who hates cyclists..

after reading this and several of your replies, it's obvious that you just don't like cyclists.

[-..__...]

80. It's not that I don't like cyclists...

it's that I don't like the attitude that many of them have that they're 'special' or exempt from certain constraints or limitations.

You want to ride a bike on a public way?

Fine... I have no problem with that.

Just be mature and responsible enough to bear some of the burden and responsibilities instead of being self righteous assholes about it.

"Make way... I'm on my bike... ding, ding, ding".

[frylock]

89. listen, i'll be the first to agree that there are some real jerks out there..

riding three and four wide down the road, and then glowering at you as if you're some asshole because you couldn't give them a wide enough berth. they give all cyclists a bad name. that's no reason to impose licensing and registration for all of us, especially those of us that ride trails. 90% of my riding is on unpaved surfaces. why should i be licensed to ride XC?!

[-..__...]

92. I can't address that question.

Off road biking is a subject that I'm not familiar with nor encountered.

However... I have read about the encounters/feuds/accidents between hikers and off road bicyclists and the stories aren't that dissimilar from those involving your urban biking counterparts.

It's probably less rare (or a much smaller percentage overall), but there's still the contributory factor there.

[Silver Swan]

87. Well,

I don't drive, but I used to belong to a bicycle club.

Several members rode bicycles because they could not obtain a driver's license.

Some had lost their license on account of DUI. One was legally blind. Some just never owned a car, so never had a driver's license.

I used to ride a bicycle if I had to go father than I could comfortable walk. I do not have a driver's license. I used to have a license, and I can drive a car, but I would rather not, and I do not think I could drive well enough in traffic to past a driver's test now.

What do you suggest? A special bicycle license?

(Don't worry--I just stay home now, unless my spouse drives. The roads are just to scary now, whether I'm on a bicycle or in a car.)

[galledgoblin]

91. sure, provided the money goes for proper bike pathing

likely would more than cover the cost and the drop in automobile use would lower the overall tax burden on us all.

[book_worm]

93. I'm a walker basically, but my pet peeve is bikers who are on the road and don't follow the

same rules as cars. If they are on the road, they should stop at a stop light just like a car, and not just until it is clear and then go before it turns green. (same with stop signs, they should stop, not just slow down and look to see if it's okay and keep going, but then car drivers do the same thing in that regard) Cars can't do that, neither should bikers. That said, I wish more people walked, biked, or took public transportation.

[mitchum]

95. What? You don't like the "now I'm a vehicle...now I'm a pedestrian" game...

engaged in by some cyclists?
Neither do I.
It is annoying.

[mitchum]

94. No, but they should be forbidden from dressing like Power Rangers

[Joanne98]

100. NO

[RidinMyDonkey]

101. Absolutely not

It's a slippery slope. I've never been good with wheels, so I don't drive a car or ride a bike. How long before someone wants me to get a license before I walk to the corner store?

However, in a strictly drivers vs. bikers view I'd think that cars do way more damage to roads than a bike could ever do. Therefor I think it's only fair that they are paying for the majority of the upkeep and maintenance.

[Paladin]

103. No, But Those Requirements Ought To Be Imposed On Gun Owners. (n/t)

[-..__...]

106. Yes... we got the memo and know all about it.

Thanks for your contribution anyways.

:eyes:

[Paladin]

111. Sorry, Couldn't Resist.

Hope your head explosion is on the mend......

[Paladin]

104. No, But Those Requirements Ought To Be Imposed On Gun Owners. (n/t)

[IDemo]

112. Just a word on the stop sign / red light thing

In this state, and I'm quite sure in many others, bicyclists are not required to come to a
full stop at stop signs unless cross traffic (or pedestrians) makes it unsafe to proceed.
Also, it is legal to cross at a red light after coming to a stop if conditions allow:

TITLE 49
MOTOR VEHICLES
CHAPTER 7
PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES
49-720. STOPPING -- TURN AND STOP SIGNALS. (1) A person operating a
bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a stop sign shall slow down and,
if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing
to a reasonable speed or stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to
any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely
as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the person is moving
across or within the intersection or junction of highways, except that a
person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if
required, may cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection
without stopping.
(2) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a
steady red traffic control light shall stop before entering the intersection
and shall yield to all other traffic. Once the person has yielded, he may
proceed through the steady red light with caution. Provided however, that a
person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if
required, may cautiously make a right-hand turn. A left-hand turn onto a
one-way highway may be made on a red light after stopping and yielding to
other traffic.

[Ms. Toad]

146. The states I'm familiar with,

cyclists are required to follow the same rules as motor vehicles when they are on the road - whether they are required to be on the road (as opposed to being permitted on sidewalks) varies more in my experience.

Edited to add: In the U.S., the law appears to be unique to Idaho. I ran across several discussions from other states suggesting the adoption or rejection of an Idaho type statute, but none that indicated it had actually been adopted elsewhere.

[pink-o]

119. Tell ya what: I'll pay extra to ride my bike when the City starts helping me out!

Like closing main arteries around town to vehicular traffic, so that only bikes, skateboards and pedestrians can use them. When the City paints clear-cut lines on the pavement for each kind of transpo, and when bike lanes don't suddenly end, turning into right-turn lanes or just disappearing so you're cozying up to the ginormous Chevy Tahoe that just moved right.

I'll pay extra when the City gives us safe, secure bike lockers, and not just rickety racks, when we're seen as valid transportation and not just a fringe element of crazy Greenies.

There should be bike lanes and bike routes in every place in America. There should be education for cyclists and drivers as to how to contend with each other on the road. That's when I'll pony up some shekels!

Oh, and PS re: stop sign running. If you people have never been on a bike, know these two things: When a cyclist gets to an intersection his/her scope of view is far better than those inhibited by a windshield. You can see the cross traffic a lot better--as a driver and a cyclist I can attest to this. So why should we stop if there's nothing coming the other way? Stopping (especially on a hill) requires a cyclist to place a foot on the ground, unclipping or getting out of a toe strap. Then it's necessary to start from a complete standstill, which takes a longer time to get moving, interrupting the flow of all traffic. If we can see there's nothing coming, we're gonna go. And I'm not talking about the hot-doggers, I'm a 54-year-old lady and a careful cyclist. As my ex-husband used to say, we're not tougher than a bumper, so we have to bike defensively.

Stopping at stop signs and red lights just cuz they're there is really pointless.

[Deja Q]

122. Yes. They already have to obey the same laws automobile drivers face...

(yet often don't and the context for which is rarely in their legitimate favor)

Insurance is supposed to cover when something dumb happens. And paying for insurance helps reduce the likelihood of dumb things happening.

[JackRiddler]

124. Should pedestrians be required to plug GPS microchips into their brain stems?

Basically... be required to comply with any and all requirements transporters of nuclear waste have to contend with.

[BlooInBloo]

125. I don't really care, but I'm clotheslining the next one I see on a sidewalk...

The fucking whinyasstittybabies don't get BOTH the road AND sidewalks.

[leeroysphitz]

131. Same road same rules. You can't have it both ways. n/t

[leeroysphitz]

132. Detroit Police Announce Bicycle License Enforcement

http://www.m-bike.org/blog/2008/07/03/detroit-police-announce-bicycle-license-enforcement







I laughed out loud when I heard about this earlier this year.

[taterguy]

133. Were you laughing at the cops or the cyclists?

My city once had an optional registration program to deter thefts.

They stopped doing it when the cops were too lazy to check the list and would auction off bikes that they found.

[leeroysphitz]

134. All cops are like that but if you have a picture of the serial number and you get to the

station before it's sold they HAVE to give it back to you.

I was laughing at the police. AS IF they could ever hope to enforce such a law...

[JackRiddler]

135. Should totalitarian fantasists be barred from proposing stupid ideas?

[IsItJustMe]

137. LOL. You read my mind.

[Orsino]

136. When they kill anywhere near as many people as auto drivers do. n/t

[JackRiddler]

138. Hell, if they ever kill even 1 out of 1000 as many!

[rucky]

141. I thought we were trying to encourage more bike riding.

:shrug:

[zagging]

143. Thanks for this post

I hope we can crack everyones nuts what don't obey the helmut law, or the law which breaks your balls. Thanks you for letting me break ur ballz you ballsack.

[taterguy]

144. What's a Helmut law?

[ChazII]

145. No

However, they should be fined for running stop signs.