How to handle lawbreaking cyclists (Austin: crimes, license plates, automobile)

[TexasHorseLady]

Pedestrians are not operating a vehicle on the roadways. There ARE restrictions on their use of them as far as crossing them and walking on them, and they ARE ticketed if they violate those restrictions.

What I find funny is that the OP is all about lawbreaking cyclists and there are people on here that clearly think that breaking the law if they don't like it is just fine, based on what their posts boil down to. So, okay, how about someone sees your bicycle parked and decides they want it and just takes it, because it's more convenient for them to do that than to buy one of their own and it's just sitting there, you're not actually USING it right that moment. Why should there be laws against taking your stuff when it's more convenient for them to take it than to be an adult and get a job and work for it? Those aren't good laws and since they don't like them and they know better, they shouldn't have to obey them.

This used to be rare and criminal kind of thinking. These days, it seems it's gone mainstream. Particularly as it applies to traffic laws, whether you ride a bicycle or drive a car.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Pedestrians are not operating a vehicle on the roadways.

They are _operating_ on the roadways. Whether there's a vehicle involved is immaterial.

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

There ARE restrictions on their use of them as far as crossing them and walking on them, and they ARE ticketed if they violate those restrictions.

Just like there are restrictions in where and how cyclists may operate, and they ARE ticketed if they violate those restrictions (or sometimes even when they don't, as described by someone else further up the thread).

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by Novacek

They are _operating_ on the roadways. Whether there's a vehicle involved is immaterial.



Just like there are restrictions in where and how cyclists may operate, and they ARE ticketed if they violate those restrictions (or sometimes even when they don't, as described by someone else further up the thread).

The vehicle is the crucial point in this. You're on a bicycle, which is a vehicle, just like automobiles and trucks and motorcycles (or so you claim when you want the privileges of a operating vehicle on the roadways).

A pedestrian is not a vehicle, nor is a pedestrian a legal mode of transport. You're really scrambling trying to justify you NOT being required to have the responsibilities of operating a vehicle on the roadways.

That is an attitude of wanting the privileges but not the responsibilities, and trying to divert attention from that to someone else irrelevant.

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by LiveUrban

It's no surprise that we insure cars that can actually directly cause thousands of dollars worth of damage, injury, and/or death and not bicycles/pedestrians.

Bicyclists can also be directly or indirectly responsible for "thousands of dollars worth of damage, injury, and/or death".

There are multiple components to auto insurance. "We" don't insure the cars as indicated. The owner and operator of the vehicle are required to carry insurance and they are even required to insure against uninsured motorists.

Based upon your arguments why should the owner/operator be obligated to obtain "uninsured motorist" coverage? ... and why shouldn't bicyclists using the same road be obligated to purchase liability insurance and uninsured motorist insurance?

There is more than one component to auto insurance. For example, liability insurance might be based in part upon the damage that a vehicle might do. Collision insurance might be based upon typical costs to repair the insured vehicle. Collision type insurance for bicyclists might be quite low compared to a car, but bicyclists wouldn't get special treatment for uninsured motorists/bicyclists. Liability insurance for a bicyclist might be high given the claims by others that bicyclists "opt" whether to observe traffic control devices. You haven't really given any good argument as to why bicyclists using the same road and just as capable of causing accidents should be excused from being required to carry liability and uninsured motorist/bicyclist insurance.

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

The vehicle is the crucial point in this. You're on a bicycle, which is a vehicle, just like automobiles and trucks and motorcycles (or so you claim when you want the privileges of a operating vehicle on the roadways).

A pedestrian is not a vehicle, nor is a pedestrian a legal mode of transport. You're really scrambling trying to justify you NOT being required to have the responsibilities of operating a vehicle on the roadways.

That is an attitude of wanting the privileges but not the responsibilities, and trying to divert attention from that to someone else irrelevant.

You'll find that Novacek is consistent in wanting privileges but not responsibilities. He/she is a zealot for Prop 1 too - he/she wants a choo-choo train that would serve extremely few "privileged" individuals but wants the rest of the city to pay for it.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

The vehicle is the crucial point in this. You're on a bicycle, which is a vehicle, just like automobiles and trucks and motorcycles (or so you claim when you want the privileges of a operating vehicle on the roadways).

A pedestrian is not a vehicle, nor is a pedestrian a legal mode of transport.

Huh? It's not legal to be a pedestrian?

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

You're really scrambling trying to justify you NOT being required to have the responsibilities of operating a vehicle on the roadways.

That is an attitude of wanting the privileges but not the responsibilities, and trying to divert attention from that to someone else irrelevant.

What responsibilities don't I want? I fulfill all my legal responsibilities when biking, which does not include (nor should it include) a license.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

You'll find that Novacek is consistent in wanting privileges but not responsibilities. He/she is a zealot for Prop 1 too - he/she wants a choo-choo train that would serve extremely few "privileged" individuals but wants the rest of the city to pay for it.

1. Completely unrelated.

2. I immediately dismiss as infantile anyone who uses "choo-choo train" in an argument.

[Eastcoasting]

Dang and I thought this was going to be the thread to solve all issues revolving around bicyclists, drivers and pedestrians.

Perhaps if Texas were to secede...

[TexasHorseLady]

The responsibilities of operating a vehicle on the public roadways include having that vehicle licensed (and inspected for certain safety features appropriate to the vehicle) and carrying insurance. You really really REALLY don't want to be required to do that even though every other vehicle on the roads is required to fulfill that responsibility (note I didn't say law, I said responsibility). The operator of every other vehicle on the roadways is required to pass a test showing that they at least know at one point in time the laws regarding operation of said vehicle on the public roadways. You really really REALLY don't want to be required to do that even though every other operator is required to fulfill that responsibility.

That you think that if it isn't the law and you aren't required by a third party to do so something isn't a responsibility speaks volumes about your world view and the thinking behind your arguments.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

The owner and operator of the vehicle are required to carry insurance and they are even required to insure against uninsured motorists.

Texas does not require you to carry uninsured motorist coverage (now, you'd be stupid not to, but you're not required to).