Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1) Legally, bicyclists are already equal on the road with cars and trucks.
2) An equal tax would be certainly unfair, since bicycles put a eensy fraction of the wear and tear on the roads (not to mention the environment) as automobiles. So, if there were to be a tax, accordingly it should be a fraction of the tax assessed to cars.
This is a good summation of my primary gripe with the licensing suggestion.
I guess we're at an impasse.
We are not talking "wear on the road" here, we are talking space & special lanes.
Don't take space designed for cars and make it bikes only (or "don't come near me"), do like Taipei did 60-70 years ago.
I think the idea to have licensing and user fees for bicycles, those fees to be used ONLY to improve the roadway accommodations for bicycles, is an interesting one that bears consideration. Bicyclists, not wanting to be licensed or taxed (and, no, all bicyclists do NOT have cars) for the privilege that the drivers/riders of other vehicles using the public roadways must be licensed and taxed for, still lobby for special and expensive changes to those roadways to accommodate their preferred mode of transportation. (I'm all for those accommodations, by the way, in the interests of public safety.)
I still have to hear a good justification for that attitude beyond, when it comes right down to it, "we just KNOW we all know the rules of the road" (and you know this how, exactly?) and "it would create a bureacracy" (the bureaucracy already exists and would need simple modification to accommodate bicyclists).
In answer to a question above, I had to go in to renew my license last fall. It was the first time in ten years that I'd been in for that specific purpose, since it's now possible to renew online - they just wanted to take a picture that was newer than ten years old. It took me about 20 minutes. I had a choice of the "big" DPS office or a smaller one in a nearby town; guess which one I chose?
So, going in once every ten years to get your license renewed and doing it in between times online doesn't sound particularly onerous. Being required to prove that you know the rules of the road for your particular kind of vehicle (there are minor differences for bicycles though many bike riders seem to make some up on their own based on what they assume it SHOULD be for them) doesn't sound particularly onerous.
By the way, I own horses, which are, in Texas, legally allowed to use the roadways last time I checked the statutes. I would have no issue with getting a license to ride horses on the public roadways. After all, as has been said, those of us who have cars already know the rules (though could likely all stand a refresher). Why on earth would it be such a big deal to take the test and get licensed, for anyone who does?
You have a solution in search of a problem. I really don't see any justification for the argument that adult cyclists know the laws less well then drivers who are required to have licenses.
Besides, most adult cyclists have driver's licenses, and the laws are essentially the same for cars and bikes. I think it's redundant to require licenses for both. Wouldn't effort and money be better spent on traffic law enforcement, or PSA/public education scheme, instead of creating a licensing system for those few people?
When I say "license", I'm not talking about a drivers license, but rather state tags for a bike like we have for cars.
Plus bikes should be inspected once a year at a state approved station to get a safety inspection sticker.
(from personal observation, a large number of bicycles have faulty brakes )
Fair is fair, so pay your fair share.
And yes, use 100% of that revenue soley for bicycle related infrastructure.
Then the feds & the state should stop diverting the 30%-40% of the gasoline tax revenues like they have been doing for decades to projects unrelated to automobile/truck infrastructure projects.
My comment to them .... STAY WITHIN YOUR BOUNDARIES !!!
It is common to catch up with a group who, even though the rule-of-the-road for bicyclers is to traverse within the marked area ... are 'generally' side-by-side..... and with a car in the left lane of mine ... AND A BUMPER ONE BEHIND US BY 5-6 FEET, there is nothing to do but try to avoid and warn them by toot of the horn .... WHICH ALWAYS GETS THE 'HAPPY FINGER' IN RESPONSE .... IF NOT CURSE WORDS AT THE NEXT SIGNAL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nighthawks11
Dear Austin Bicyclist,
Hello, how are you? I hope that this letter finds you well and in good health. That’s something I’ve been meaning to speak with you about: Your health. I see that you are health conscious enough to understand the importance of physical activity and I commend that effort. You are a shining star and a fine example to each and every person in this community. However I am noticing some pretty nasty habits… this would be something akin to the junk food of bicycling. These things include ignoring traffic laws and even city ordinances that were actually drafted for your safety.
I know that sounds pretty up tight and it sounds like the Man is just trying to keep his thumb on you because (insert reasoning the government doesn’t want you to be happy here), but really guys (and gals) there are legitimate reasons why those laws are in place: Your health. I have responded to a collision before that involved a bicyclist. This bicyclist was hit by a car while not adhering to those ridiculous bicycle laws and the girl was so broken, that after my portion of the emergency response was completed I had to excuse myself to vomit.
Friends, it’s not polite to make other people sick. It’s also not polite to run red lights and stop signs on your bicycle only to have someone hit you and then you die and that person has to live the rest of their life knowing they were involved in the loss of a human life. Thats a Party foul.
Just to make sure we understand one another, I do not dislike your culture. Even I can be seen among your ranks. I’m the guy in wind shorts that are a little too short and my tie-die doo rag. Actually I love you guys. Every time I see one of you that B.J. Thomas song pops into my head and I love that song.
I know it is not always you at fault. There are a lot of jerk drivers out there, but I think it is important that you do everything you can to keep yourself safe.
A 2000 pound car traveling at 35mph can deliver roughly 82,000ftlbs of energy. When fired a .357 magnum delivers about 1200ftlbs of energy at the muzzle. So that’s like getting shot with a gun that is 68 times more powerful than a .357. That will do some unnatural things to the human body.
In closing, I can only beg that if this letter finds you, that you will at least consider it and perhaps even tweak your cycling habits just a tiny bit in the “don’t die” direction.
I'd gladly pay $30 a year (what moped registration costs now) and an annual inspection fee if it meant no longer hearing "Why are there cyclists on my roads??!!" As a bonus with registrations maybe we could get the police to pay more attention to bike theft than just saying "Well, that happens. You'll likely never see it again".
Of course as soon as we implemented such fees the goalposts would move to complaining about insurance, then to about mirrors, or lights, or who knows what else. This is because the real root of all this bickering isn't safety or being inconvenienced but instead is a product of people viewing roads as "car only" spaces into which cyclists are trespassing, provoking an almost territorial anger response and a whole heck of a lot of confirmation bias regarding the actions of cyclists. Cyclists then get fed up with being denied use of something they have a legal right to use and of being painted with a broad brush because of the actions of others.
As for spending: For the federal highway trust fund less than 1% goes to pedestrian and bicycle improvement projects. That's because a dedicated paved bike/walking trail is about $250,000 per mile while a two lane road is about $20,000,000 per mile. That's for a dedicated trail too, doing something like they did on Barton Springs road and painting a line on the already required shoulder and putting up the occasional "bike lane" sign is even cheaper.
People get a bit incensed when they see a road rebuilt, widened, and a bike lane put in because it looks like extra money was spent to put in that lan. What is really happening is the newer highway standards require a shoulder of a certain width (wide shoulders provide better runoff control and also reduce wrecks by giving more maneuvering space) and they are just throwing a bike lane onto that new are because why not do so when all it costs is some paint? Also I'm fairly sure that all highway designers are sadists and all the angry "they spent money on bike lanes nobody uses!" letters to the editor must just fill their black hearts with glee.
My comment to them .... STAY WITHIN YOUR BOUNDARIES !!!
It is common to catch up with a group who, even though the rule-of-the-road for bicyclers is to traverse within the marked area ... are 'generally' side-by-side..... and with a car in the left lane of mine ... AND A BUMPER ONE BEHIND US BY 5-6 FEET, there is nothing to do but try to avoid and warn them by toot of the horn .... WHICH ALWAYS GETS THE 'HAPPY FINGER' IN RESPONSE .... IF NOT CURSE WORDS AT THE NEXT SIGNAL.
I ride my bike 50-100 miles a week, but I also do a considerable amount of driving. Why do you suppose I NEVER feel the need to honk at cyclist? Could it be I just wait for the opportunity to make a safe considerate pass? It never takes that long. I don't get places late because of being polite to cyclists -- even including those who are somewhat clueless. If somebody is driving 5-6 feet behind you they are tailgating which is illegal, dangerous and stupid.
The "marked" area is frequently badly very poorly designed and extremely unsafe to ride in. I invite you to get on a bike and ride with me and I can demonstrate. Side-by-side vs. single file is a mixed bag: Single file sometimes tempts the motorist to squeeze by the cyclists where there really isn't room for a safe pass. The "3 foot" law is broken by motorists on a regular basis. If the pass is to be done safely with a full lane change, the cyclists stretched out single file force the motorist onto the left side of a two lane highway, facing oncoming traffic, much longer. It can be a tradeoff. Of course, in some cases the cyclists are simply being arrogant, granted, but that is hardly a trait exclusive to them.
I'd gladly pay $30 a year (what moped registration costs now) and an annual inspection fee if it meant no longer hearing "Why are there cyclists on my roads??!!" As a bonus with registrations maybe we could get the police to pay more attention to bike theft than just saying "Well, that happens. You'll likely never see it again".
Of course as soon as we implemented such fees the goalposts would move to complaining about insurance, then to about mirrors, or lights, or who knows what else. This is because the real root of all this bickering isn't safety or being inconvenienced but instead is a product of people viewing roads as "car only" spaces into which cyclists are trespassing, provoking an almost territorial anger response and a whole heck of a lot of confirmation bias regarding the actions of cyclists. Cyclists then get fed up with being denied use of something they have a legal right to use and of being painted with a broad brush because of the actions of others.
Brings up another good point. If cyclists were to become licensed, and have to pay an annual inspection/registration, they should be entitled to a whole lane like any car or motorcycle. Right? And while we're at it, if cyclists are paying they should have access to every roadway a car/motorcycle does. Like, Mopac and I-35, etc.
Brings up another good point. If cyclists were to become licensed, and have to pay an annual inspection/registration, they should be entitled to a whole lane like any car or motorcycle. Right? And while we're at it, if cyclists are paying they should have access to every roadway a car/motorcycle does. Like, Mopac and I-35, etc.
Seems only fair.
Cyclists are already entitled to a full lane. When there is not a bike lane I will ride near the middle of the lane so cars see me, and cannot pass me unsafely (as mentioned earlier, the 3 foot rule is rarely adhered to by motorists.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
"Why are there cyclists on my roads??!!" As a bonus with registrations maybe we could get the police to pay more attention to bike theft than just saying "Well, that happens. You'll likely never see it again".
