3 ms·

> The person driving the car is the one holding the deadlier weapon, why are they not held to a higher sense of responsibility? They are. There are insurance

• pyre 15y ago
  > We can argue about whether these requirements are > adequate, but it's absurd to suggest that they don't > exist. Maybe I phrased my point poorly. My point was that people in cars tend to want to hold people on bicycles to a higher standard of road awareness than they hold themselves to. There's rarely a sense of, "Maybe I should be more careful," and more often a sense of, "You should just get out of my way." A reasonable analogy would be hunters and guns. Hunters are required to get both a hunting license and a gun license (barring bow hunters, etc). If someone is wandering around in the forest during hunting season, who is the person that should be more aware of their surroundings. We can argue that both people should be, but the hunter is the person with the deadly weapon.
• goodweeds 15y ago
  They are. There are insurance requirements for driving, licensing, etc. I'm unaware of any legal restrictions on bicyling on public roads (apart from staying off certain restricted access roads, typically interstates). I've actually wondered why there aren't insurance and licensing requirements. I would be happy paying my fair share of infrastructure maintenance as a cyclist, especially if it helped give a voice and build safer roads for bicyclists.
  • elithrar 15y ago
    > I've actually wondered why there aren't insurance and licensing requirements. I would be happy paying my fair share of infrastructure maintenance as a cyclist, especially if it helped give a voice and build safer roads for bicyclists. There are big debates about whether bicycle (rider?) licensing would be effective, but my two concerns are: 1) Added cost gives no incentive to car drivers to start commuting by bike, which would have at least some effect on congestion, pollution and health. 2) How do you enforce it? There needs to be a big improvement in driver education, and responsible cycling needs to be promoted from a young age. Cutting reds and not signalling is behavioural issue that won't be magically fixed by registration/licensing.
    • goodweeds 15y ago
      1) Added cost gives no incentive to car drivers to start commuting by bike, which would have at least some effect on congestion, pollution and health. Maybe not directly, but the funds generated from licensing and penalties could go towards education programs, tax rebates for those who start commuting by bike, improving safety for cyclists, etc. My guess is that there's a network effect to be had. Once you hit a certain density or,(ugh) critical mass of cyclists on the road you get a point where it is safe and socially-accepted enough that it will become commonplace, and everybody wins. 2) How do you enforce it? I don't know, I have no experience in the machinations of government. However, I'm confident that if you tell state and municipal governments that they could generate revenue off of it, they will find a way.
  • bryanlarsen 15y ago
    If you're a taxpayer and a cyclist, you're already paying way more than your fair share -- most infrastructure is paid for via property & income taxes.
    • goodweeds 15y ago
      Well I'm a small business owner, so my accountant does everything in her power to minimize my income taxes, and I live in San Francisco, so I will never be able afford to own property or pay property taxes, so I'm probably not paying my fair share.
      • mikeklaas 15y ago
        If you rent, your landlord pays property tax on your flat. Every non-homeless person pays property tax.