Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

if motor vehicles were registered then it might be possible to fine drivers who break road rules?

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/unpa ... 6424871566

some real quality reporting in that news clip - I like the way the guy quoted talk show phone in's as a reliable source

now i'm sure that some of the pedestrians that hate cyclists are like the news reporter - someone who hates cyclists as a driver and is an occasional pedestrian and maintains that hatred but what about the danger cyclists pose to pedestrians? Think the data will tell us it is perceived rather than actual but the fact that people are being increasingly(?) vocal about dangerous cyclists among pedestrians is a concern for me - locally 2 cycle projects have been abandoned with the council citing concerns about fast moving cyclists among pedestrians on shared use paths

the issue here is that rather than take space away from cars the solution is to mix cyclists in the limited space that pedestrians have even through design (shared paths) or by default with cyclists using pavements because they are scared of the traffic (or are a small minority that just don't care and would be equally inconsiderate irrespective) so forget registration - its like smokers demanding that non-smokers should have to walk to the shops to buy their cigs for them - sure ways to make life better for pedestrians and cyclists is to reduce vehicle speeds, design junctions to give priority to non motorised users and take some of that road space and give it to cyclists, we need to question the need for so many journeys - like many I drive as well as cycle but just think the balance is wrong - i'll be happy when it not thought of as irresponsible to let kids cycle to school

Based on the thought that almost every one who rides a bike usually has a registered motor car or two; that would cost us about 0 cents based on weight to register.

And that could just be noted on the rego papers. Would it not be sensible to get a reduction in rego due to leaving the car at home? So no duplicating of resources at all.
Or is that too much reverse psychology?

A free T shirt with "Non Polluting Vehicle " on it might make motorist consider the merits of cycling as well.

outnabike wrote:
And that could just be noted on the rego papers. Would it not be sensible to get a reduction in rego due to leaving the car at home? So no duplicating of resources at all.
Or is that too much reverse psychology?

So people who own a motorbike should get discounted rego because they own a car as well? Or a discount on their boat rego if they happen to own a car and a boat? What about the tradie or farmer that has a backhoe or a tractor that they drive from job to job, while leaving their car, motorbike, truck and boat in the shed at home?
Owning another vehicle is a silly argument for discounted rego.
Not neccessarily saying rego for bicycles is a good thing. I'd really only support it if it meant a change in attitude toward cyclists by drivers and we know this negativity is ingrained into our culture and fed by sections of the media so it won't happen overnight regardless of how much rego we pay.

Ross wrote:Not neccessarily saying rego for bicycles is a good thing. I'd really only support it if it meant a change in attitude toward cyclists by drivers and we know this negativity is ingrained into our culture and fed by sections of the media so it won't happen overnight regardless of how much rego we pay.

This is never going to happen with the current, enduring mindset, and such a mindset has precious little to do with all the spurious, self-justifying calls for bicycle rego. Forget about it. It is a furphy.

Ross wrote: Not neccessarily saying rego for bicycles is a good thing. I'd really only support it if it meant a change in attitude toward cyclists by drivers and we know this negativity is ingrained into our culture and fed by sections of the media so it won't happen overnight regardless of how much rego we pay.

Sorry, I'm confused. If you aren't necessarily saying it, then what are you saying? You are sounding like a politician using terms like that.

I'd celebrate if bicycle registration and extremely draconian law enforcement against cyclists began tomorrow. Might be good to see it actually happen and see what a failure it would be. My guess is that nearly everyone would stop cycling.

People need to stop reading (or looking at the pictures or whatever else you do with that tripe) the Murdoch press. It's not good for your intellect or mental health. There are alternatives.

http://theconversation.com/bicycle-regi ... viour-4987

Cyclists are a small fry minority. What about those crazy pedestrians who think they can get away with anything. Isn't time they were registered.

human909 wrote:Cyclists are a small fry minority. What about those crazy pedestrians who think they can get away with anything. Isn't time they were registered.

Yep, and make them wear helmets too . . . if it only saves one life!

DS

g-boaf wrote:

Ross wrote: Not neccessarily saying rego for bicycles is a good thing. I'd really only support it if it meant a change in attitude toward cyclists by drivers and we know this negativity is ingrained into our culture and fed by sections of the media so it won't happen overnight regardless of how much rego we pay.

Sorry, I'm confused. If you aren't necessarily saying it, then what are you saying? You are sounding like a politician using terms like that.

I'd celebrate if bicycle registration and extremely draconian law enforcement against cyclists began tomorrow. Might be good to see it actually happen and see what a failure it would be. My guess is that nearly everyone would stop cycling.

I thought it was pretty clear (others seem to have understood...) but I'll try and clarify it further for you. I would be happy to pay rego on my bike(s) if that meant motorists suddenly became compassionate, tolerant and treated us as equals.

To pay bike rego for the reason to help fund infastructure like most motorists mistakenly think they do, is of course silly, and would actually be a backward step as it would cost more to administer than it would raise, and as you point out would most likely discourage people from cycling. I'm sure also the Police have more than enough more important duities to perform rather than checking bikes to see if they are registered.

Or to pay bike rego for the purpose of law enforcement is silly as well. Cyclists who disobey the law are already able to be penalised if caught, so how would registering bikes make this any different? The Police won't do anything if Joe or Josephine Public walk into a Police station now and say "I just saw a silver Commodore rego number XYZ 123 go through a red light at Smith St just now", so they wouldn't do anything if someone reported that "a rider on blue Malvern Star rego number XXX 123 went through a red light on Jones St".

Ross wrote:I would be happy to pay rego on my bike(s) if that meant motorists suddenly became compassionate, tolerant and treated us as equals.

That wouldn't occur. Those who currently complain about cyclists will find something else about cyclists that they don't like. Bicycle registration (apart from being financially unviable) won't fix prejudice.

VRE wrote:

Ross wrote:I would be happy to pay rego on my bike(s) if that meant motorists suddenly became compassionate, tolerant and treated us as equals.

That wouldn't occur. Those who currently complain about cyclists will find something else about cyclists that they don't like. Bicycle registration (apart from being financially unviable) won't fix prejudice.

My thoughts, exactly.

I'd be happy to pay bicycle registration if it meant instant world peace and fixed climate change.

Blah blah blah blah blah.....................NO !!!!!!!!!

I know I am in the minority here but I wouldn't mind being registered. I don't mind being accountable for my actions on the road.

The discussion about motorists reporting cyclists breaking the law is a furphy isn't it? It would be just like when a car runs a red light, the police deal with it.

As to the registration fee, of course I would like it to be small. Of course the real damage to roads is caused by trucks who should be paying high rego fees rather than cyclists or cars. I wouldn't mind paying $60 a year. Free registration for kids is reasonable.

I know we should be encouraging cycling but even someone on the dole can afford a dollar a week.

Of course there is the question of multiple bikes. Ideally you should be able to transfer the plate because you can only ride 1 bike at a time. However, car registrations cannot be transferred so there is no easy answer for that one.

You will all be glad to know that it will never happen as it is all too hard for the government.

diggler wrote:I know I am in the minority here but I wouldn't mind being registered. I don't mind being accountable for my actions on the road.

What does being accountable for your actions have to do with being registered?

diggler wrote:Free registration for kids is reasonable.

I know we should be encouraging cycling but even someone on the dole can afford a dollar a week.

Its not about the cost, it is about the inconvenience. It is yet another barrier to cycling and serves no purpose.

diggler wrote:I know I am in the minority here but I wouldn't mind being registered. I don't mind being accountable for my actions on the road.

The discussion about motorists reporting cyclists breaking the law is a furphy isn't it? It would be just like when a car runs a red light, the police deal with it.

As to the registration fee, of course I would like it to be small. Of course the real damage to roads is caused by trucks who should be paying high rego fees rather than cyclists or cars. I wouldn't mind paying $60 a year. Free registration for kids is reasonable.

I know we should be encouraging cycling but even someone on the dole can afford a dollar a week..

I agree with you. The more we push for this to happen, the better the chance it will succeed. You lobby your local MP, I'll lobby mine. And everyone will live happily ever after. Yeah right.

I'l help with that lobbying Mr Concorde.
As soon as the editors and publishers of the Daly (as in Arfur)Terrorgraf, the Gooier Male and the Feral Hun, Mr Drain Hunch, Mr Mealy Nitchell and Mr 'Arold Skruloose and others all sign notarised promises to get off our damn backs AND stump up $5,000,000.00 each to fund compensation for the injuries their fan clubs will continue to inflict on riders because this rego thing is not so much a red herring as a red whale.

Mulger bill wrote:I'l help with that lobbying Mr Concorde.
As soon as the editors and publishers of the Daly (as in Arfur)Terrorgraf, the Gooier Male and the Feral Hun, Mr Drain Hunch, Mr Mealy Nitchell and Mr 'Arold Skruloose and others all sign notarised promises to get off our damn backs AND stump up $5,000,000.00 each to fund compensation for the injuries their fan clubs will continue to inflict on riders because this rego thing is not so much a red herring as a red whale.

Bingo! As you point out, (and as I hinted to with my subtle sarcasm) - this rego thing won't make anything safer and it certainly won't make some mental force-field around every registered bicycle whereby the driver thinks, oh, this guy is registered, I won't try and run him down or kill him.

I had a discussion a couple of work colleagues a couple of weeks ago.

I pointed out to them the full cost of road maintenance compared to registration funding.

That was a bit of a surprise for quite a few of them.

As for registration I have no real problem with the idea as long as we get representative funding the at the same levels as motorised vehicles.

At $10 per bike we it would see nearly 20 fold increase.

That's alot of new on road infrastructure

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk 4

Rego at anything less than motor vehicle rates will not change a single thing.
The next slogan of antipathy towards cyclists will be that as we don't pay as much as your motor dependent citizen we are only entitled to use the little bits called bike paths.

The whole bike rego thing is a red herring that plays so nicely into the governments coffer interested hands and achieves nothing in terms of road relations.

Also mentioned in this thread and something that I could not agree any more than wholeheartedly with is that having multiple registered vehicles means paying multiple TAC (in VIC) insurance premiums for one insured risk.
TAC premiums should be license based (they already know what I drive/ride/operate) but that would reduce a very nice revenue stream for the government.