Is it time bicycles were registered?

[Ross]

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/ ... egistered/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not a bad article

[im_no_pro]

Not a bad article

Agreed, although it is somewhat an opinion piece that doesnt really form an opinion. Still raises some solid reasoning for both sides though.

[Tornado]

Will it really improve anything? The whole "we could report their wrong doings" arguement is crap. The police won't send you an infringement based on a phone call from Joe Public saying they saw you roll through a stop sign or something. The standard line would be that they need to see it to book it. Many of us Lycra bandits have insurance already for injury and property damage. I'm pretty sure that the cost would out weigh any benefits (If there were actually any).

[TimW]

The standard line would be that they need to see it to book it

The standard line is, "Are you prepared to go to court as a witness if we issue a ticket"? The answer is normally "No", therefore the matter cannot proceed without a witness.

[trainedmonkey]

The thing I find really frustrating about the "paying your fair share" argument, is that it's based on some fundamental misunderstandings about how roads are funded and built in this country.

A large percentage of new roads in Australia are built by developers as part of new housing estates. Take the North Lakes development on Brisbane's northern outskirts as an example. All of the new roads in that vast development were paid for by the developers. In addition, the developers also paid for the freeway on ramps. The developer recoups the costs of building the roads (and establishing the sewerage, power, water and communications network) through the purchase price of the land. After an agreed period of time the local council takes over the maintenance of these roads. For North Lakes, that's the Moreton Bay Regional Shire - a local government authority whose primary source of income is from rates.

The Qld state government maintains the "main roads" network. The network maps can be found on the TMR website. It was only a few years ago the Department of Transport was merged with Main Roads to create TMR (and in so doing confusing the relationship between registration and road funding for many people).

The federal government chips in as well. They fund the federal highways and occasional other piece of road infrastructure with a "federally funded" sign slapped on it. In addition there is a federal "Roads to Recovery" scheme that seems to be throwing some money at local councils for infrastructure projects.

So, given that funding for road construction is primarily from the private sector and that maintenance is mostly done by local governments with the addition of key infrastructure at both the state and federal level, I can't believe that people think that the rego fee they pay to their state government somehow "pays for roads".

[Bob_TAS]

Given that more than half of vehicle registration fees are for MAIB premiums, it could work if bike registration was deducted from vehicle fees.

Registration Fee: $83.16
Road Safety Levy: $25.00
Motor Tax: $150.00
Duty: $20.00
MAIB Premium: $344.00

Paying additional registration on top of $622.16 to spend less time in my car and more time riding just doesn't make sense.

[trailgumby]

When bicycle traffic consistently reaches the levels shown in the headline photograph, then registration is appropriate. Until then, cost to society of registration > benefit x 10^6.

[thecaptn]

I for one would be very happy to be registered, provided that cycling safety infrastructure were to be retrofitted to ALL roads. This to me would mean 1. european style bike lanes in towns and cities that can't be parked in by cars and are separated from the trafic to protect riders from accidents and doorings and 2. wide shoulders on all paved roads to provide a car free space for cyclists to ride, this would mean no driving or parking of cars in this space.

If registration of bicycles weren't to be accompanied with improvements in bicycle safety then cyclists would become second class citizens who have to pay for the privilage.

Also, the question would need to be asked, would the bicycle or the rider be registered? Because for the majority of us who own multiple bikes, registration would be an unfair burden and you can only ride one bike at a time anyway.

One more thing, the TAC insurance is designed to provide compensation for people who's health and welbeing is compromised by road trafic. Seeing as cycling has been proven to benefit peoples health then the inverse of insurence must be required, this could mean financial reward for those who cycle and if this were roughly equal to the cost of registering a bicycle they'd cancel each other out so the end result would be a bicycle license plate and rego free of charge

[Baldy]

Bicycle rego. Nope.

Bicycle license. Sure.

I can get a perfectly roadworthy bike for next to nothing and in some cases free. Having to register any bike that might be ridden on the road is stupid.

Do I win a prize?

[thecaptn]

Bicycle rego. Nope.

Bicycle license. Sure.

I can get a perfectly roadworthy bike for next to nothing and in some cases free. Having to register any bike that might be ridden on the road is stupid.

Do I win a prize?

What sort of a prize would you like?

[Mulger bill]

When bicycle traffic consistently reaches the levels shown in the headline photograph, then registration is appropriate.

Really? What will it achieve? If a fee could ever be made cost effective, methinks it would drive many casuals even further away from occasionally throwing a leg over than that other thing which shall not be mentioned.
Less riders all round means the system will be less cost effective until the Govt determines that the best way to cover costs is to jack up the fees which would drive many more casuals even further away from occasionally throwing a leg over than those other things which shall not be mentioned.

Never give the Govt yet another chance to stick their hand in your pocket.

[ColinOldnCranky]

Will it really improve anything? The whole "we could report their wrong doings" arguement is crap.

Agreed simply because when was the last time one of us reported a car running a red light? I don't know about the rest of you guys but I have witnessed several hundred cars doing so and I have never reported it. How many ofof us have?

Almost universally no. Because, as Tornado suggested, little action comes of such reports anyway.

[ColinOldnCranky]

Typically a cyclist riding to work or the shops has substituted a trip in the car that requires much more expensive infrastructure. ergo a bike registrant would be paying a penalty for saving society a cost. Seems backward rather than justfiiable.

Now if we all paid for the roads and infrastructure based on actual usage - ie per km and car weight and charged at the full cost of infrastructure - then it would maybe make sense if cyclists per km rate was taxed at a reduced rate.

Of course such a charge would never be charged at full cost of infrastructure even if we levied users on use. So even with a per km levy cyclists trips in place of equivalent car trip would be a saving to the community.

[wombatK]

No, never.

Crikey puts up a straw man argument on the cyclists side (and uses a dreadfully big word to hide it behind):

The customary counter from cyclists to the first argument is that revenue from registration fees and the fuel
excise tax isn’t hypothecated to road expenditure. Roads are funded from general revenue so everyone
pays for them.

The cyclist argument isn't that the registration and fuel excises are hypothecated - that is dedicated - to road expenditure.

Rather, it is that other public funds have to be directed to expenditure on roads and to motoring related costs particularly
to funding the cost of injury, trauma and damage caused by motorists (a very large part of which is charged to
medicare).

The funds extracted from registration and fuel excise go only a small fraction of the way to covering total road and
motoring expenditures, and don't go close to funding the overall costs of road transport.

It is not sophistry for cyclists to argue that motorists don't pay their way - its a demonstrable fact, borne out by a
variety of public studies and reports. The sooner motorists understand and accept that, the sooner they might
show greater tolerance of cyclists and willingness to share the road with the others who pay for their motoring.

Cheers

[Ross]

I for one would be very happy to be registered, provided that cycling safety infrastructure were to be retrofitted to ALL roads. This to me would mean 1. european style bike lanes in towns and cities that can't be parked in by cars and are separated from the trafic to protect riders from accidents and doorings and 2. wide shoulders on all paved roads to provide a car free space for cyclists to ride, this would mean no driving or parking of cars in this space.

It wouldn't be practical or even possible for a lot of roads even if the govt had the money.

Also, the question would need to be asked, would the bicycle or the rider be registered? Because for the majority of us who own multiple bikes, registration would be an unfair burden and you can only ride one bike at a time anyway.

With all due respect that's a bit of a silly argument. Lots of people have multiple vehicles and if they want to drive them on the road, even if it's only for one day out of a year, then they must be registered. Why should bikes be any different?

Bike rego would be a big disincentive for riding, much bigger than the arguable MHL I reckon.

[Mulger bill]

It wouldn't be popular or even possible for a lot of roads even if the govt had the money.

Fixed that for you

[thecaptn]

Ideally governments and local councils should be doing more to promote cycling in the community as oppossed to creating obstacles to participation. Cars are inherently dirty, dangerous and evil and therefore should be regulated. Bicycles provide freedom for people of little means like students and seniors without the associated negatives that come with motorised transport. The regulation of cycling is the dream of tree hating bogans, it's irrational, stupid and should be vigorously opposed by all in the cycling community. It's interesting to me that the bicycle registration discussion rears it's ugly head again as a consideration arising from the death of a cyclist caused by a truck driver. How would registering of the rider change the outcome in this instance?

[rkelsen]

The article seems a bit contrived to me.

The author, while trying very hard to appear neutral, makes several 'rookie mistakes.' The worst of these is probably where he denounces the dismissing of arguments off-hand... right before he does the exact same thing himself.

[thecaptn]

I for one would be very happy to be registered, provided that cycling safety infrastructure were to be retrofitted to ALL roads. This to me would mean 1. european style bike lanes in towns and cities that can't be parked in by cars and are separated from the trafic to protect riders from accidents and doorings and 2. wide shoulders on all paved roads to provide a car free space for cyclists to ride, this would mean no driving or parking of cars in this space.

It wouldn't be practical or even possible for a lot of roads even if the govt had the money.

Also, the question would need to be asked, would the bicycle or the rider be registered? Because for the majority of us who own multiple bikes, registration would be an unfair burden and you can only ride one bike at a time anyway.

With all due respect that's a bit of a silly argument. Lots of people have multiple vehicles and if they want to drive them on the road, even if it's only for one day out of a year, then they must be registered. Why should bikes be any different?

Bike rego would be a big disincentive for riding, much bigger than the arguable MHL I reckon.

I wasn't being clear with what I was saying. Most of the cost of registering a car is the TAC accident insurance and as a result someone who owns 10 cars is paying 10 times the insurance to cover the potential results of their actions than someone who owns one car. Both drivers have the same likelyhood of killing of injuring someone so my argument is it makes more sense and is fairer to have the insurance attached to the driver as opposed to the car. The car would still be registered. The insurance is attached to the car because it raises more revinue. Why do people want bikes to be registered? It's so that riders can be held accountable for their actions not because of any damage done to the road, so registering a bike would be for completely different reasons to the registering of a car, reasons more easily addressed by registering the rider. That's unless the registration process is implemented for revinue raising.

[ColinOldnCranky]

No, never.

Crikey puts up a straw man argument on the cyclists side (and uses a dreadfully big word to hide it behind):

The customary counter from cyclists to the first argument is that revenue from registration fees and the fuel
excise tax isn’t hypothecated to road expenditure. Roads are funded from general revenue so everyone
pays for them.

The cyclist argument isn't that the registration and fuel excises are hypothecated - that is dedicated - to road expenditure.

Not a straw man at all. They are very accurately parroting a common retort that is put forward on this forum.

[DavidS]

Ideally governments and local councils should be doing more to promote cycling in the community as oppossed to creating obstacles to participation. Cars are inherently dirty, dangerous and evil and therefore should be regulated. Bicycles provide freedom for people of little means like students and seniors without the associated negatives that come with motorised transport. The regulation of cycling is the dream of tree hating bogans, it's irrational, stupid and should be vigorously opposed by all in the cycling community. It's interesting to me that the bicycle registration discussion rears it's ugly head again as a consideration arising from the death of a cyclist caused by a truck driver. How would registering of the rider change the outcome in this instance?

Couldn't agree more. A cyclist gets killed by an irresponsible truck driver and yet bike registration is on the agenda. Talk about blaming the victim.

DS

[silentbutdeadly]

Motor vehicle registration dates from a time when motor vehicles were rare, expensive and dangerous to the great majority of road users who were using horses, bicycles and their own two feet to get around. As a result of this, governments of the day sought to keep account of them and recover the costs of doing so through registration. The only thing that has changed since then is the rarity and expense of motor vehicles and the decline of horse, bicycles and walking as a methodology for getting around.

They are still considered dangerous. The only other similarly registered items with an equivalent data management system are firearms. And users don't pay an annual registration fee for firearms.

The simple fact is that it will never be time to register bicycles because registration will not solve a problem that doesn't exist.

[Tornado]

The simple fact is that it will never be time to register bicycles because registration will not solve a problem that doesn't exist.

I like that sentence

[KenGS]

The simple fact is that it will never be time to register bicycles because registration will not solve a problem that doesn't exist.

But..but it would because the problem is that cyclists don't pay rego!!

[Ross]

I wasn't being clear with what I was saying. Most of the cost of registering a car is the TAC accident insurance and as a result someone who owns 10 cars is paying 10 times the insurance to cover the potential results of their actions than someone who owns one car. Both drivers have the same likelyhood of killing of injuring someone so my argument is it makes more sense and is fairer to have the insurance attached to the driver as opposed to the car. The car would still be registered. The insurance is attached to the car because it raises more revinue.

Good point about registering a driver rather than a vehicle but you have different types of vehicles that each attract a different compulsory third party insurance rate, not to mention the registration rate being different for each as well, so not sure how your proposal would work. Would the person that owns 2 road trains pay the same as another person that owns 2 motor scooters?

Why do people want bikes to be registered? It's so that riders can be held accountable for their actions not because of any damage done to the road, so registering a bike would be for completely different reasons to the registering of a car, reasons more easily addressed by registering the rider. That's unless the registration process is implemented for revinue raising.

I belive the real reason motorists want rego for bikes is not so much the mistaken belief about identifying and punishing lawbreakers but the fact that they are jealous because they pay and we don't.

Everything the govt does is about revenue raising and self-congratulatory reasons, very little to do with helping the community. I'm surprised so few people can see this. Not restricted to any particular party, they are all only in it for themselves. They have to fund their 3 payrises in 16 months somehow...