rus said:
They invent a problem and "solve" it all the time.
FTFY ;)





Nice ;)
JeepGirl said:
It would help solve the issue that cyclists using public roadways don't display any type of vehicle identification, which they should.
How is that a problem? Or just a problem in your mind?
Interesting reads:
http://streetsblog.net/2012/05/23/bike-registration-laws-a-license-to-profile/
http://www.urbanvelo.org/issue6/urbanvelo6_p56-57.html
ETA
I've personally seen the profiling issue at play in Columbus. We were supporting Latino festival a few years ago and had the bike corral set up. One of the riders came, collected his bike and rode off. There was some momentary discussion amongst the 6-7 CPD bike officers who decided it didn't look like a bike he should be riding and went off after him.
I have no issue with a bike tax, as long as it is proportionate to the dollars spent on bike infrastructure compared to auto taxes and the percentage they pay for their respective infrastructure. I think we'd be talking very very small numbers, and would probably be extremely difficult to compute....to the point it's not really worth it, unless bike transportation picks up.
lifeontwowheels said:
How is that a problem? Or just a problem in your mind?
Well yeah, it's a problem in my mind. A cyclist can cause a crash or injury just like any other vehicle and they should be held responsible just like an auto driver. Any vehicle operating on public roadways should be licensed and identified IMO. I also think that road going cyclists should be required to take an exam/skills test to earn an endorsement on their drivers license similar to a motorcycle if they want to operate on any public roadway.
JeepGirl said:
A cyclist can cause a crash or injury just like any other vehicle and they should be held responsible just like an auto driver.
They are held responsible, the laws of the state don't dissolve when riding a bike. Take for example the San fran cyclist who is currently being charged with vehicular manslaughter
JeepGirl said:
I also think that road going cyclists should be required to take an exam/skills test to earn an endorsement on their drivers license similar to a motorcycle if they want to operate on any public roadway.
I will be the first in line to take a cycle endorsement the moment they make getting a license to drive a vehicle a measurably difficult task to achieve. Given all these fully license and tagged vehicle operators can't seem to remember what exactly you are supposed to do when the power is out at a stop light, I say we all follow the Finnish model.
JeepGirl said:
Well yeah, it's a problem in my mind. A cyclist can cause a crash or injury just like any other vehicle and they should be held responsible just like an auto driver. Any vehicle operating on public roadways should be licensed and identified IMO. I also think that road going cyclists should be required to take an exam/skills test to earn an endorsement on their drivers license similar to a motorcycle if they want to operate on any public roadway.
As Pakintat pointed out the absence of a plate doesn't prevent enforcement. Besides, drivers hit and skip all the time. The fact that they have a plate doesn't immediately hold them responsible.
I'd also be for adding cycling requirements to the license but I would also like to see all licensed vehicle operators (cars, bikes and motorcycles) retake the test every 4 years at renewal.
paktinat said:
They are held responsible, the laws of the state don't dissolve when riding a bike. Take for example the San fran cyclist who is currently being charged with vehicular manslaughterI will be the first in line to take a cycle endorsement the moment they make getting a license to drive a vehicle a measurably difficult task to achieve. Given all these fully license and tagged vehicle operators can't seem to remember what exactly you are supposed to do when the power is out at a stop light, I say we all follow the Finnish model.
Yes, there is criminal responsibility when a major crime like manslaughter is committed. But hopefully you're smart enough to know that's not what we're talking about here. Criminal charges don't cover personal loss. Let's say a cyclist runs a red light and causes a collision between themselves and another vehicle, or just two other vehicles. Why is that vehicle operator (the cyclist) not required to carry insurance or to be licensed for identification or required to meet operator qualifications to operate on the roadways like the rest of the vehicles?
And I agree 100% that drivers license requirements in the US should be tougher. But that still shouldn't allow a certain type of vehicle to operate on our roadways with no accountability or training at all.
JeepGirl said:
Yes, there is criminal responsibility when a major crime like manslaughter is committed. But hopefully you're smart enough to know that's not what we're talking about here. Criminal charges don't cover personal loss. Let's say a cyclist runs a red light and causes a collision between themselves and another vehicle, or just two other vehicles. Why is that vehicle operator (the cyclist) not required to carry insurance or to be licensed for identification or required to meet operator qualifications to operate on the roadways like the rest of the vehicles?And I agree 100% that drivers license requirements in the US should be tougher. But that still shouldn't allow a certain type of vehicle to operate on our roadways with no accountability or training at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/EffectiveAdvocacy/TheRightToTravel.htm
http://www.ohiobikelawyer.com/uncategorized/2010/09/share-the-road-stinks/
JeepGirl said:
Yes, there is criminal responsibility when a major crime like manslaughter is committed. But hopefully you're smart enough to know that's not what we're talking about here.
You are the one who said "A cyclist can cause a [...] injury [...] and they should be held responsible..." I was simply showing that they are held accountable. I hope you are smart enough to realize what you wrote with your own hands previously.
paktinat said:
You are the one who said "A cyclist can cause a [...] injury [...] and they should be held responsible..." I was simply showing that they are held accountable. I hope you are smart enough to realize what you wrote with your own hands previously.
So if you're guilty of a cycling error and injure me as I'm legally crossing a street at a crosswalk you might get a traffic citation. What mechanism assures that you as a vehicle traveling on public roadways are financially responsible for my injury?
JeepGirl said:
Not a lawyer, but that means I would have to sue, correct?
not necessarily
if the biker in this example gets cited and has to appear in court the court may grant restitution at the trial or hearing
If not then yes you would have to sue which is no different than any other accident on the street. Regardless of liability insurance medical/property damage bills are out of pocket unless covered by other insurance until a settlement in or out of court is reached and that can take as much as 2 years. Also despite most states requiring insurance for motor vehicles people in large numbers still operate w/o it. The big difference here is though a 200lb bike w/rider has very little kinetic energy or mass relative to a car and rarely travels at very high speeds, damage is typically minimal and usually ruins the bikers day as much as anyone else.
You must log in to post.