News: Bills would require license plate for all [bicycles], annual registration

[LeVeL]

This is how it breaks down:

Scenario #1: you are driving down a small local road/street at ~30mph and there is a bicycle coming the other way.
-I go right around it and forget I even saw it in about 0.015328 seconds
-Most FG members bitch, piss, and moan about it for a month even though absolutely nothing happened

Scenario #2: you are driving down a small local road/street at ~30mph and there is a bicycle coming towards you and there is also oncoming traffic, making it difficult to pass said bicycle.
-I slow down briefly and blow by the bike as soon as it is safe to do so
-Most FG members bitch, piss, and moan about how they had to slow down for 3 seconds

Scenario #3: You are sitting at a red light and a bicycle squeezes between lanes and runs the red.
-I don't even notice
-Most FG members bitch, piss, and moan about that damn maniac!

Scenario #4: you are entering an intersection when a bicycle approaches down the intersecting street, sees a car coming, and stops
-I, again, don't even notice
-Most FG members bitch, piss, and moan about that maniac that was definitely going to run the light and hit the side of their precious new Ferrari

Scenario #5: you are entering an intersection when a bicycle approaches down the intersecting street and blows through the red
-I dab the brakes or switch lanes to avoid him or add throttle to beat him
-Most FG members do the same exact thing as I did but then proceed to bitch, piss, and moan about how that maniac almost scratched their car and died in the process

Scenario #6: you are driving along when a bicycle comes within 5 feet of a pickup truck that's going 5mph
-I ignore it
-Spectre makes a video and wants the cyclist to pay a few hundred dollars in fines


Am I forgetting anything?

 

[Spectre]

So in your little world, some animals are more equal than others. I see.

Or is it "enforcement for thee, but not for me because bicyclists are the chosen special ones and should not have to ever be responsible for anything?"

Either way, people who hold such views as you evidently do disgust me. Please emigrate to North Korea, a place that is supposed to operate on those values, immediately.

So much for equal responsibility, equal treatment under the law and equal justice.

 

[LeVeL]

So in your little world, some animals are more equal than others. I see.

Yes, 3500lbs 75"-wide metal animals on four wheels that are capable of very high speeds are ever so slightly unequal to a 40lbs 15-20"-wide two wheeled animal powered by a human being edging close to the guardrail so he/she doesn't get run over. Apparently this isn't obvious.

Or is it "enforcement for thee, but not for me because bicyclists are the chosen special ones and should not have to ever be responsible for anything?"

You have got to be kidding me...

Either way, people who hold such views as you evidently do disgust me. Please emigrate to North Korea, a place that is supposed to operate on those values, immediately.

I'm not sure you realize how little I care about whether or not I disgust you or where you think I should emigrate.

So much for equal responsibility, equal treatment under the law and equal justice.

I never thought that someone could fail this hard at seeing the difference between a CAR and a BICYCLE.


I'll be perfectly blunt - that video that you posted earlier in this thread depicts an angry guy with a huge stick up his ass following some dude and his little daughter who are out for an afternoon bike ride down some small suburban side-streets, who chooses to bitch, piss, moan, and videotape said cyclists for no apparent reason instead of just driving right past them and moving on with his day. If they really irk you that much, what do you do when someone, oh I don't know, cuts you off or something? Start blastin'?

 

[BlaRo]

If they really irk you that much, what do you do when someone, oh I don't know, cuts you off or something? Start blastin'?

 

[narf]

I'll be perfectly blunt - that video that you posted earlier in this thread depicts an angry guy with a huge stick up his ass following some dude and his little daughter who are out for an afternoon bike ride down some small suburban side-streets, who chooses to bitch, piss, moan, and videotape said cyclists for no apparent reason instead of just driving right past them and moving on with his day. If they really irk you that much, what do you do when someone, oh I don't know, cuts you off or something? Start blastin'?

He should be glad the dad didn't go all Texan on him for creeping after and videotaping his little daughter.

 

[altoid]

Why does that bother you? They use their own judgement and if they are right, they get ahead of you for a whole 15 seconds before your light turns green and you speed by them; if they are wrong, its once again not your problem.

If I am going through an intersection at (a legal) 45mph while the light is green and I plow through a cyclist and kill her, I have to live with that for the rest of my life.
So I have a fuge fucking problem with anyone running red lights.

That said, I'm not sure registration and licensing are the correct solutions to this problem. Perhaps law enforcement needs to do a better job of discouraging asshat-like riding?

Then again, I live in Los Angeles. Everyone here is fucking insane and nobody knows how to behave on the road. It's so bad that cyclists don't even make it on my list of grievances.

And before anyone smites me for simply being a driver jealous of the advantages of two wheels, know that I am (hopefully) only a few weeks away from owning a motorcycle (already have my license and gear). I also grew up on my bicycle before I moved to the States. And I also applaud those who lane-split (responsibly) and get ahead of me, as that helps me see them, and such. I just think it's BS that people feel entitled to ignore some fairly elementary traffic laws because of their vehicle choice (and this goes for assholes in pickups/SUVs/supercars who like to cut traffic with 0 room between vehicles).

C/N: Can't we all just get along?

 

[prizrak]

Hmm... so you're talking about a car going the wrong way down a two way street not being seen by a bicycle going the wrong way down a two way street? I'm confused.

No no no. I'm talking about a cyclist going the right way down a street. Car coming up behind to overtake, cyclist doesn't see the car and might stray into its path at the last moment (AFAIK mirrors are not required on bicycles here). If you are on a one way and cyclists are legally allowed to go the wrong way it means that he would see my car no matter what. On two ways its not a good idea to go against the traffic because that would complicate any maneuvers such as turning. Also lets face it they go really slow so I don't mind if they get some shortcuts legally as long as its not something stupid and obviously dangerous (to both cyclists and other users of the road)
@LeVeL,
Here is the problem with your thinking. Anything you say about bicycles is true for motorcycles/scooters as well. You can easily pass one if it is moving slow (provided it keeps to the right) you can do all the things you described. However those vehicles require a license, insurance and registration to operate, why do you want to give cyclists a free pass to disobey the rules of the road? I mean yes cyclists cannot do much damage to an average car but they can cause an accident from a driver having to swerve to miss one. I'm sure they could quite easily knock someone off a motorcycle as well.

The whole point of a law is equal treatment of everyone, I could argue that sport cars should be allowed to drive over the general speed limit as they are more stable at speed and are made for it. By the same token SUV's should be banned altogether because they take up too much of the road. I don't see how it's unfair to ask cyclists to obey the same exact rules that the rest of us have to.

 

[snoro]

There is always some morons everywhere to ruin the fun of the majority, be they are on cars, bike, motorbike or even on foot.

Example, a guy come past downhill on his bike at 40 mph and pass on the red without even looking if there is any incoming cars. He gets hit and die. Faulty person in this case is the cyclist and no doubt about it.

Another time, a cyclist come to an intersection, its a red for him, he slow down to be able to see if there is any incoming car, he sees that there is no car that could hit during the time he passes so he pass trough the red. He is still faulty ??? For me the awnser is no, because he took the time to make sure he and the others will be safe during his action.

Next example, a 9 year olds kid is riding his bike near his house with his friends , they are not going straight and then the kid decide to cross the street with no warning cause he arrived at his home and you hit him. Who is faulty ?? This one is a bit trickier hey ? Now sure some would say the kid is at fault and you would be a bit right, because he didnt check for any car comming but the driver could also have stopped in time, cause seriously, who goes at 25mph in a suburban zone with kids riding their bikes on the sides of the road. So the driver could have also stopped in time and kept a safe distance if the kid ever pull something like that.

So yes, bikes should have regulation but that dosent mean to bitch all cyclist behaviour, cause if we as a society decided that car, pedestrian and cyclist all have to share the same bit of road, then they should ALL behave so everyone can choose if type of transport and still be safe in that type of transport without having others thinking they are the king of the roads and that single inches of road belong to them.

 

[captain_70s]

Tbh I actually approve of this. Its not like having to have a license is a massive inconvenience, and at $15 a year hardly going to break the bank. I am a cyclist myself, I never have ridden on the road much mostly because its not very safe and when I do I use hand signals and follow the rules of the road in the same way I would with a car. Its common sense to use the same rules as everyone else, one person not following the rules can fuck the whole system up.

Gotta' say some points in this thread are retarded though, in the vid with the guy and his daughter I do see the point, he obviously wasn't stable while riding and he didn't use any arm signals to indicate direction or anything. There was plenty of room for the truck though and I treat bicycles in the same way I do motorbikes, give extra room to account for balance and road hazards like pot holes.

When I'm stuck behind a cyclist I don't really mind, its rarely for long. They shouldn't be allowed on motorways or dual carriageways though their speed is way too slow, fast A roads normally contain enough space to pass safely anyway. I know some people get really bitchy about cyclists not hugging the pavement but that is far more dangerous than being near the centre of the lane. It gets hard to balance as you get closer to the curb as you over compensate to avoid hitting it, once I moved over too far to let a car past and the pedal hit a tall bit of curb and I almost fell in front of the car that was passing me.

Skipping through traffic I have no problem with if there is room, motorbikes do this anyway, I also don't mind them stopping in front of the row of traffic because I appreciate its not easy to start off with cars surrounding you and if you end up stuck it only inconveniences the people behind you more. Running red lights is a no-no though, what if you run one and a car driving across the junction swerves to avoid you and crashes? That's the sort of thing the license would sort out, having a road worthy bike is also worth consideration, every other vehicle on the road has a safety standard, why not bikes?

Insurance isn't unreasonable either, I got my bike up to 28mph on straights, when the speedo worked, probably faster on downhill stretches when it was broken. if I had hit somebody at that speed I have no doubt it'd cause nasty injuries. Probably more to me than them but still...

 

[LeVeL]

@LeVeL,
Here is the problem with your thinking. Anything you say about bicycles is true for motorcycles/scooters as well. You can easily pass one if it is moving slow (provided it keeps to the right) you can do all the things you described. However those vehicles require a license, insurance and registration to operate, why do you want to give cyclists a free pass to disobey the rules of the road? I mean yes cyclists cannot do much damage to an average car but they can cause an accident from a driver having to swerve to miss one. I'm sure they could quite easily knock someone off a motorcycle as well.

A motorcycle needs plates because it has an engine, making it very fast and, therefore, dangerous (that and its heavy so it will do much more damage if it hits a car). As soon as a bicycle pops a wheelie between two cars on the highway at 100mph, I'll personally send apology cards to everyone who has posted in this thread and then camp out in front of the White House demanding that bicycles get license plates. That said, its also about use. People commute long distances on motorcycles but not really on bicycles or scooters.

 

[prizrak]

Another time, a cyclist come to an intersection, its a red for him, he slow down to be able to see if there is any incoming car, he sees that there is no car that could hit during the time he passes so he pass trough the red. He is still faulty ??? For me the awnser is no, because he took the time to make sure he and the others will be safe during his action.

Then why can't I do the same in my car? Or why can't bikers do it on their bikes?

A motorcycle needs plates because it has an engine, making it very fast and, therefore, dangerous (that and its heavy so it will do much more damage if it hits a car). As soon as a bicycle pops a wheelie between two cars on the highway at 100mph, I'll personally send apology cards to everyone who has posted in this thread and then camp out in front of the White House demanding that bicycles get license plates. That said, its also about use. People commute long distances on motorcycles but not really on bicycles or scooters.

What about scooters? They don't go very fast and weigh very little you could pick one up. There are bicycles with electric motor assists now for going up hills they would be motor vehicles by any definition. (In fact they would be TRUE motor vehicles as non electric cars, bikes, truck use engines )

I think you seem to skip the fact that a bicycle vs car is not the only way a crash can occur. Yes a bicycle crashing into my car at even 70mph wouldn't do much more than dent my door and possibly break my window (with the rider) not nearly enough mass. Even less damage to an SUV or any other tall vehicle as the rider would be hitting the metal. There are way more scenarios than just that though:
1) Cyclist goes through a red light a car sees him and swerves to avoid it hits:
a) Another car causing an accident, for bonus points it can even be a head on
b) Jumps the curb hits a pedestrian
- Now if the cyclist wasn't hit he could just continue on his merry way and never get caught despite it clearly being his fault. If he has a plate on it someone will get the number.

2) Cyclist goes through red light down hill at 40mph (not really all that far fetched), hits a motorcyclist going through an intersection, two bodies hitting each other with such force will cause injuries. Cyclists insurance would have to pay for both the biker and himself.

3) Same as above except he hits a pedestrian crossing on a green. There was a case in recent history where a cyclist killed a jogger by hitting them.

4) Cyclist goes through red light, car hits him, kills him, driver has to live with the knowledge he killed someone.

Licensing bicycles would allow to introduce same deterrents to cyclists as they have for other vehicles on the road. Would it solve all the problems? Probably not but at the very least it should mitigate some. At the same time it would serve to get more respect out of other drivers as they would be seen as equal participants in traffic rather than annoying free loaders that they are viewed as right now.

 

[camsinny]

@ LeVel So by your reckoning I could theoretically attach a car sized (and shape for novelty) box to a bike and ride it around with no registration, doing whatever the fuck I wanted to do, disobeying any road rules I thought didn't matter with no insurance and you'd be cool with that?
Also, bike couriers probably cycle further in a day than you drive your car, in fact I have a friend who is a courier and he tells me about all the shit he does to get packages delivered on time - in the CBD with busses, taxis, pedestrians, cars and motorbikes; most of the time he is going faster than the 40km/h speed limits imposed in the city and he runs red lights all the time. You think he's less dangerous than a car or motorbike in the city?

Also, regarding my previous statement about lights and their effect: Do you understand the concept of aiming headlights? If so you should understand my point; if not - grab a torch and shine it in your eyes, now shine it a little lower...get the point now? Also, most car's low-beams are around 1000 lumens, I did a quick search for bike lights which returned most above 1200 lumens going up to as much as 2200, those two factors combined can be really fucking annoying on a dark road and SHOULD be checked. If you don't understand that I have lost all hope for you.
Here's a picture for demonstration:

 

[LeVeL]

Then why can't I do the same in my car? Or why can't bikers do it on their bikes?

Because there is a LOT more risk involved when a car runs a red light.

What about scooters? They don't go very fast and weigh very little you could pick one up. There are bicycles with electric motor assists now for going up hills they would be motor vehicles by any definition. (In fact they would be TRUE motor vehicles as non electric cars, bikes, truck use engines )

Do scooters need plates? I don't actually know :lol:

1) A pedestrian runs across the street through a red light a car sees him and swerves to avoid it hits:
a) Another car causing an accident, for bonus points it can even be a head on
b) Jumps the curb hits a pedestrian
- Now if the pedestrian wasn't hit he could just continue on his merry way and never get caught despite it clearly being his fault. If he has a bar-code on the back of his head, hitman-style, someone will get the number.

FTFY

2) Cyclist goes through red light down hill at 40mph (not really all that far fetched), hits a motorcyclist going through an intersection, two bodies hitting each other with such force will cause injuries. Cyclists insurance would have to pay for both the biker and himself.
3) Same as above except he hits a pedestrian crossing on a green. There was a case in recent history where a cyclist killed a jogger by hitting them.

You do have a point here but you have to agree that these scenarios are pretty far fetched.

4) Cyclist goes through red light, car hits him, kills him, driver has to live with the knowledge he killed someone.

Could happen to a pedestrian. Or even an animal. What's your point?

@ LeVel So by your reckoning I could theoretically attach a car sized (and shape for novelty) box to a bike and ride it around with no registration, doing whatever the fuck I wanted to do, disobeying any road rules I thought didn't matter with no insurance and you'd be cool with that?

I don't really understand where this comment is coming from...

Also, bike couriers probably cycle further in a day than you drive your car, in fact I have a friend who is a courier and he tells me about all the shit he does to get packages delivered on time - in the CBD with busses, taxis, pedestrians, cars and motorbikes; most of the time he is going faster than the 40km/h speed limits imposed in the city and he runs red lights all the time. You think he's less dangerous than a car or motorbike in the city?

Yes, I do think that a cyclist approaching a red light, checking to make sure there is no one coming, and running the light is safer to those around him than if a car did the same thing. Think about what happens if a car hits a bike vs if two cars collide? Btw, this is once again an exception, not the rule. Most cyclists (at least ones I've seen) stop for red lights.

Also, regarding my previous statement about lights and their effect: Do you understand the concept of aiming headlights?

Do you understand it? Think carefully about how high a car's headlights are aimed and how low a bicycle's light is aimed... Not to mention that when you pass a bicycle at night he will only really be visible in your mirror for what, 15 seconds?

 

[prizrak]

Do scooters need plates? I don't actually know

The ones I seen here (like Vespas and stuff) do. At least they have them so I'm assuming they do.

FTFY

Yes I agree a pedestrian could cause the same thing, however there are a couple of things different:
1) Generally speaking foot and wheeled traffic are segregate by sidewalks (tho I been to places with no sidewalks at all).
2) The right to freedom of movement is very limiting when it comes posing restrictions on pedestrians (walking is a right after all), also jaywalking is illegal and was actually enforced in NYC when Julianni was a mayor (not many other places though).
3) Unlike cyclists there is no quick getaway for a pedestrian, even if they run it's easy enough to catch up with them. Bicycles can move quite quick for a limited period of time at least.

You do have a point here but you have to agree that these scenarios are pretty far fetched.

I agree but so is me hitting something on an empty road at 3 am if I crawl through a red light yet it is still illegal. Law has to deal with things that are not necessarily common (for instance you have a law against conspiracy to commit murder, and one for outright murder the former can't be all that common but its there)

Could happen to a pedestrian. Or even an animal. What's your point?

It's about the probability. Pedestrians are segregated from general traffic and are generally found in predictable places (near crosswalks and such) Cyclists who ride in traffic are always near 3500lb controlled missiles.

Btw, this is once again an exception, not the rule. Most cyclists (at least ones I've seen) stop for red lights.

Pics or it didnt happen! I see cyclists stop for red lights only when they cant get through because of either pedestrians crossing or cars. Most all of them treat the red light as a stop sign.

lso, regarding my previous statement about lights and their effect: Do you understand the concept of aiming headlights?

I'll be honest with you I never seen bicycles with bright enough lights to bother me. I see entirely too many without and kind of lights or reflectors, which pisses me the hell off when I almost hit them at night.

P.S. can you guys tell I'm REALLY bored at work

Looks like the bill might have been killed. Have a friend in upstate who was at some talk where people alluded to it.

@LeVeL, it is moot now but one final point. If registration doesn't stop people from being asshats there is no reason to have registration on any vehicle.

 

[katwalk]

Do scooters need plates? I don't actually know :lol:

Scooters have plates and require a license and an affordable registration, they are legally limited to 30 mph top speed and can drive on bicycle paths. This is why I said that everyone could probably agree to treat bicycles and scooter the same with an exception for minors, they travel the same speed and drive in the same places, the only difference is what powers them.

 

[LeVeL]

How about we just build bicycle lanes then? I've biked through Boston before and it was definitely sketchy with all the cars around you but once you get onto a bike path, you are relatively safe.

 

[katwalk]

How about we just build bicycle lanes then? I've biked through Boston before and it was definitely sketchy with all the cars around you but once you get onto a bike path, you are relatively safe.

The smaller roads around here are way too narrow for that (which is probably the #1 issue I have with bikes on the road)a lot of time you can't fit even a very narrow bike on the road next to the cars. Hell, on my street you can barely fit the cars. If I am driving up the road and someone is coming the other way I have to pull onto the dirt (or in this weather, attempt to drive up a snowbank) and let the other car past. A good deal of roads in my town don't even have side walks on both sides so fitting a bike lane would be impossible.
The reason it would work in Boston is everything is one way because the roads are about 1 1/2 cars wide anyway but that means you can be a block away from your destination in a car but have to drive around in circles trying to get there. I wouldn't want every town to be like that.

 

[prizrak]

How about we just build bicycle lanes then? I've biked through Boston before and it was definitely sketchy with all the cars around you but once you get onto a bike path, you are relatively safe.

See this actually indirectly supports bike registration, setting up bike lanes costs money (in cases of some of the crazy serious ones in this city a LOT of money I suspect) currently that money is paid from the general road budget meaning that there is less of it available for proper road maintenance. So you charges cyclists a registration fee and recoup at least SOME of the funds that were used to improve their safety. Seems fair no?

The reason it would work in Boston is everything is one way because the roads are about 1 1/2 cars wide anyway but that means you can be a block away from your destination in a car but have to drive around in circles trying to get there. I wouldn't want every town to be like that.

You'd hate Manhattan then, most of it is HUGE one ways (like 4-5 lanes).

 

[katwalk]

I have the navigational skills of james may, one way streets are made by satan.

 

[prizrak]

I have the navigational skills of james may, one way streets are made by satan.

You NEED this