Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy
In the OP Bill Watson states a reason for registration as law enforcement. As I understand it the basis for vehicle registration is taxation of road use, to establish and protect ownership, and ensure vehicle safety standards.
As far as any cyclist breaking road rules, that is a police matter of enforcement. In Victoria any cyclist fined by the police loses points from his driver's licence even though not driving a car or requiring a licence to ride a bike. The arguement for bike registration as a means of law enforcement does not logically hold up.
On the other hand, if they want to register bikes as a means of tax then it should reflect the cost to society of cyclists, road maintenance, accident costs etc. I don't know what accident costs caused by cyclists are but road maintenance and upkeep costs from cyclists are minimal.
I weigh about 95 Kg, with a steel frame and backpack about another 15 Kg. All up my axle weight is around 55 Kg vs 700 Kg for an average car (per axle). I am about one fourteenth of a car and in terms of wear on roads you use a 4th power rule which puts my road cost down below a thousandth of a car. If a car registration (excluding 3rd party insurance) is a couple of hundred dollars a fair cost for me would be around 20 cents per annum. I would be willing to pay that any day they want and all I would ask in return is equal rights on the roads including the use of freeways.
All that aside I would hate to be the cop who stands outside the primary school checking the bike registration of ten year olds.
Hypothetically, one is driving and is forced to brake suddenly to avoid a jaywalking pedestrian and toots the horn to indicate a dangerous situation. Pedestrian then proceeds to kick the door of the car and jump on the roof.
Said pedestrian then runs off.
Hypothetically, someone breaks into your house through the back window while you are sleeping. You wake and confront the intruder. He/she knocks you out with a bat and/or lamp and you are left with concussion, 12 stitches and several missing items.
Hypothetically, your teenage daughter goes to a party with friends and some older people gatecrash the party and slip a sedative into her drink. She wakes up in a state of undress and obviously has been assaulted. The gatecrashers are nowhere to be seen.
Hypothetically, you are driving in your car and at an intersection a car runs a red light, crashes into you, causing serious injuries. The other drivers runs off, and you later find out the car is stolen.
Hypothetically, you are in a bank making a deposit, when a masked man with a shotgun enters the branch. He demands all of the cash in the bank, as well as your watch, phone and wallet. He then leaves in a stolen getaway car.
Hypothetically, you are sitting at home watching Eastenders when a man from the electricity company comes and advises that you have dangerous wiring and needs to inspect your house. He has credentials, and you let him in. Later you notice many valuables missing, and when reporting the matter to police, discover that the person was using a fake ID and has committed several similar offences. Police have no leads.
Hypothetically, you are leaving a theatre early with your son and wife, when an armed man confronts you in a back alley and demands cash and jewellery. The robbery is botched, you and your wife end up being shot, and your son grows up and decides to become a masked vigilante using the vast financial resources left by your estate, much to the disdain of his long time butler and father figure, and love interests.
All very realistic situations (bar one), and yet - no way of identifying the perpetrator.
You can create hypotheticals to try and prove any argument - and based on your own logic, I ask you to explain to me why it is unreasonable to mandate that all persons must wear visible indentification at all times to enable all members of the public to feel "safe" knowing they can identify the perpetrator of any wrongdoing?
As much as it's nice to live in fantasyland where you can leave your doors unlocked, let your kids play in the park on their own, and anyone who commits a crime is caught and held accountable for their actions - it's not the real world. Youc an also argue that there are many measures that would make it easier to identify criminal and or unsavoury activity. Why don't we let the government monitor all private phone and internet activity for any potential evildoers? Why don't we attach GPS transmitters to all people at birth so that we can pinpoint their location at all times in case they are in danger or commit an offense? Why don't we have random searches of properties just in case someone who has gone un-noticed by police just happens to be hiding inbred children in their basement? Why don't we have a curfew for all citizens given the amount of crime that happens after dark? I would also like valid arguements as to why these are not suitable ideas - and none of the nancy pants blabbering about cost effectiveness, breach of privacy or whatnot - after all, if you have nothing to hide what is the problem?
Am I opposed to the idea of bike registration 'in principle'? not really - if it's free, unobtrusive and shuts up the smokeboxers, then I am all for it. But unfortunately (or fortunately) its simply not an idea with any real merit unless you belong to a select group of intellectuals who still believe the world is flat, homosexuality is a sin, and bikes belong on the footpath.
2012 Fuji SST1.0 stealth (full Ultegra)
2010 Merida TFS400D Hybrid
And there it is, the natural conclusion to any heated thread
The Dutch Royalty asked every Dutch citizen to wear the Star of David during the occupation and subsequently the Dutch Jews weren't persecuted. The Dutch ride bikes. Just sayin'
2012 Oppy A4
I apologise. You caught me before my 2nd thoughts delete. Was not my intention, but referencing earlier posts re embedded micro-chips and skin tatoos.
Well, Bill, I think the onus to show that such a law would accomplish any useful purpose is on you. You've tried to discharge it with hypotheticals and snide remarks about the 1% (which I thought had to do with outlaw motorcycle gangs, but no matter) and you've failed.
I suspect that the real motivation for the rego-for-cyclists push is this: to assert the primacy of the motor vehicle. The idea that anyone should be able to use the road on terms more favourable than motorists is anathema to a lot of people. So we have helmets for cyclists, rego for cyclists, licensing for cyclists and so on. This is the only reason I can see for the assumption that rego for cyclists is a good thing.
If you want an educational debate, how about you state the assumptions that you operate under. I'm more than happy to put my cards on the table: I assume that all human beings have an inherent dignity, whether they drive a car or not. I assume that, because of this inherent dignity people are entitled to freedom of movement and that it shouldn't be interfered with lightly. Every transport law should be examined in light of that. Rego for cyclists fails. The reasons it fails have been discussed at length in this thread and I have nothing to add.
Now, Bill, what assumptions are you operating under? Educate me.
You say we only pick on wrong doings of motorists and pedestrians. You obviously didn't see the posts pointing out wrong doings by cyclist. In fact some of us even nominate our own poor actions in there.
But being a cycling forum we would be bias. A bit like a motorists forum being bias to vehicles.
As for justifying why we don't pay Rego. We don't need to, the law states we don't need Rego. It is as simple as that, state and federal policy doesn't require it. So no point getting narky at bike riders as they are doing something they are legally entitled too.
Also as for being accountable, a cyclist is. The police enforce the laws, not peds or motorists.
Sent from my not iDevice using Tapatalk 2
He seems to have come here looking for some confirmation bias, and was apparently upset that he didn't get any.
I don't think he's coming back.
The mods should lock this thread before it becomes another 20 page circle-jerk.
The only way to understand the views of a cyclist and what a cyclist deals with day in day out, be it on the road or having conversations like this with work colleagues and family members is to buy a bike ride it and experience it, and you may even see some health benefits.
If you aren't open minded enough to give it a try, it would be your loss.
Of course as I have stated in my previous posts most cyclists are motorists as well, so we do see things from both sides we are not one minded 1percenters of society who take no interest in obeying the laws or respecting society at large.
What say you ladies and gentlemen?
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
It is nice isn't it? And the bold make it look so much more orange
Methinks ldr has a good idea, we give Mr Watson 24 more hours to present ONE cogent and reasoned argument in favour of his theory that bicycle registration will make the world a better, brighter place. Say 1930 tomorrow?
London Boy 29/12/2011
Alway preferred rain sounds meself tho' ABC Jazz is happening in the background tonight
London Boy 29/12/2011
It was "short, fast, loud" on TripleJ for me last night. There's nothing like the sound of a double kick drum and cookie monster singing to spur on a chain wipe and re-lube session.
Back on topic, still awaiting that reply from motorist...
Wow !! thanks for that 14 minutes 31 seconds of relaxing insect sex. Did you notice at the 11 minute 43 second mark I think I heard a toad fart.
Gas propulsion.......it's natural don't fight it.
Notwithstanding BW's reasons for the post, I for one am grateful that the thread was started. Thanks to the responses from the thread I have a lot of useful of info for when next I'm ambushed and attacked for cycling.
PS: What is/the point of, a troll?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users