Advocacy & Safety - Are bicycles vehicles?

Are bicycles vehicles? Or are bicycles something else-- something in between a vehicle and a pedestrian?

(Motor) Vehicles are required to be registered and insured, to pay taxes for road maintenance, and operators are required to be licensed. None of these requirements are applicable to bicycles. And while bicycles are subject to the traffic regulations, they are also permitted on sidewalks with pedestrians, while (motor) vehicles are not.

And while bicyclists often claim that bicycles are vehicles, and therefore have all of the rights that operators of other vehicles enjoy, they also often attempt to evade the responsibilities-- observance of traffic regulations, for example-- that are incumbent upon operators of other vehicles. Some cyclists want to have their cake and eat it too-- bicycles are vehicles when it gives them certain rights, but bicycles are not vehicles when it imposes certain responsibilities on them.

So what are bicycles-- Vehicles? A special class of vehicles? Or neither vehicle nor pedestrian?

And what are the implications of that classification? For example....

1) Should bicycles be subject to all of the traffic regulations that other vehicles are subject to? Or should some of the traffic regulations be adapted to meet the needs of bicycles? What is the rationale?


2) Should bicycles continue to use a combination of roads, bike lanes, and sidewalks, as they do now? Or should bicycle-specific facilities-- as see in some European cities-- be developed to separate bicycles from both motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic? What is the rationale?

[ATTN VC Evangelists: I realize this question brings VC into the mix, and that's OK, but PLEASE respect the topic of this thread-- it's not about VC, it's asking a number of questions-- and PLEASE don't hijack this thread for VC evangelism. Make your point, one post should be more than enough to do it, but don't hijack. Fair enough? Thanks!]


3) Should bicycles be taxed to pay for the roads they use? Or should they be exempt from taxes, as they are now? What is the rationale?


4) Should bicycles be registered and cyclists licensed, as motor vehicles and their operators are? Or should they continue to be unregulated, as they are now? What is the rationale?


5) Should bicycles be insured, as motor vehicles are? Or should they be uninsured, as they are now? What is the rationale?

A lawyer told me that when a car rear-ended me on my bike while I was in the bike lane I was a pedestrian in the view of WA law. Don't know what I would have been in the regular traffic lane.

1) I'd like to see all the traffic regulations enforced properly, but I suspect I would say the second thing. The vast majority of traffic laws are car-centered (actually many are revenue-centered). But whatever happens, laws that apply to everything on the road should be applied equally to everything on the road.

2) No idea here. Bike-specific pathways would be nice, but they would need to be made to accomodate all types of bikes and riders. Imagine having to design a road for Model T's, Escalades, Civics and F1 cars. That's probably cost-prohibitive, so I'll say share the roads.

3) Considering that cars are on the roads, bikes essentially don't damage them. Right now, bikes are almost never considered when designing and building roads. "No taxation without representation!" Or something like that.

4) "Not licensesd" is not "unregulated". Driving a bike on the road is still entails lots of laws and regulations. There are lots of laws in every state that govern cycling on roads, and how other vehicles need to interact with them. Enforce those first, then if that doesn't work to make cycling safer, we can talk about classes, licenses and registration.

5) Insurance should be available, both for damage to the bike and rider, and for liability. I don't think that cyclists cause enough damage that it's necessary to spread the costs to all cyclists by requiring the purchase of liability insurance. But you should be able to protect yourself. I'm not even saying that insurance companies should be mandated to provide it, I'm more surprised that it's not more popular. Theft insurance is a little more difficult. It's very hard to predict the cost of insurance when the theft rate is high, but the cost (compared to a car) is relatively low.

Wrong. Motor vehicles with more then 5 hp must be registered, insured, and operated by a liscensed driver. The definition of a bicycle is expicitly worded in Article 27 of the South Carolina Penal Code, 1976 revision, as having the rights, privledges, and responsibilities of a motor vehicle with the following exceptions:

The exceptions are about every logical exceptions that could apply to a bicycle.

Not all motor vehicles need to be insured or registered. Farm machinery and pick-up trucks used for farming are some examples. I think it is just fine that bikes have most of the same rights and responsibilities as cars, but don't need to be registered.

I think bicycles are a special class of vehicle-- they're obviously not a motor vehicle, but they're also clearly something more than a pedestrian. As such, I believe that...

1) A rational argument can be made that while bicycles are vehicles and therefore subject to the rules of the road, bicycles should receive favorable treatment-- much as low-emission vehicles do on highways-- with some traffic regulations. For example, the law could be changed to allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs. However, I believe bicyclists should observe the existing traffic laws until they are changed.


2) My preference would be for bicycle-specific facilities that separate bicycles from vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and where such facilities are not available, for bicycles to continue to use a combination of roads, bike lanes, and sidewalks, as they do now.


3) I believe that bicyclists should they be exempt from taxes, as they are now, because bicycles do not place wear and tear on the roads. Furthermore, because bicycles do not place wear and tear on the roads, and because they do not impact air quality, keeping them tax-free would be a recognition that bicycles are low-impact, and therefore a favored means of transport.


4) I believe that motor vehicles are inherently more dangerous, and therefore, have registration and licensing requirements that reflect the danger they pose. Bicycles are inherently less dangerous, and therefore, I see no need to require registration and licensing. However... One argument for registration would be that it could potentially cut down bike theft, because in order to sell a bike, you'd need to have title to it. As far as licensing, I think it's not necessary, but where a cyclist receives a traffic citation, there should be an option, or maybe even a requirement, to attend a bicycle safety class.


5) I believe that at a minimum, comprehensive insurance should be available to cyclists. I think good arguments can be made both for and against mandatory insurance. Perhaps if insurance is made optional, rather than mandatory, jail sentences should apply where a cyclist causes damage or injury and is uninsured and unable to pay for the damages. The bottom line for me is that cyclists should at least have the option of insuring themselves.

Bikes by law are vehicals here in ohio at least. This means we have to by law ride acordingly. As in no red light running except in the case a signal is malfuntioning as in wont change to green. In this case just like cars and others you can treet said signal as a stop sign.

We are not required to act as a vehical however. In other words we can perform a pedestrian turn or ride at low speeds on sidewalks.

I would say depending entirly on where you ride your a vehical a hybrid between ped and vehical or a pedestrian.


As for the insurnce thing id be fine with non required insurance and might at some point get it my self. Would be nice to know that if some jackass in a car trashes my bike im covered regardless of his insurance companies response.

As someone mentioned, a motorcycle (proibably a scooter) under a certain HP or displacement (generally 5 HP or 50cc) is free from nearly all taxes (some states they might need plates, and are treated as vehicles everywhere but the freeway. Sounds familiar and no one disputes that these are vehicles.

Some cyclists want to have their cake and eat it too-- bicycles are vehicles
when it gives them certain rights, but bicycles are not vehicles when it imposes certain
responsibilities on them.

Im not one of them. I dont expect or want any rights that have to be legislated. I live simply
by one rule that should be universal...respect. I will always stay out of your way and all I
ask in return is that you dont try to kill me.

So what are bicycles-- Vehicles? A special class of vehicles?
Or neither vehicle nor pedestrian?

I prefer "conveyance'.....Is a skateboard a vehicle ? A unicycle ? Do you become a vehicle
if you strap on Rollerblades ??

1) Should bicycles be subject to all of the traffic regulations that other
vehicles are subject to? Or should some of the traffic regulations be adapted to meet the
needs of bicycles? What is the rationale?

Traffic regulations should be adapted to alternative transportaion.
Why should a bicycle have to stop in the line of a traffic jam ?
Practicing a higher level of social and environmental concsiousness at a time when
it is needed most should be encouraged, not punished by useless, unknowledgable authoritarian
entities.


2) Should bicycles continue to use a combination of roads, bike lanes,
and sidewalks, as they do now? Or should bicycle-specific facilities-- as see in some European
cities-- be developed to separate bicycles from both motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic?
What is the rationale?

Yes, whenever possible. Alternative trans should be promoted. More people would
utilitarian cycle if they think they werent in constant danger. After a recent exchnge with
some car drivers and road bike riders on our local papers BBS board two themes re-occured....
People thinking is insane to ride with cars and people angry at club roadies who take up
a whole lane and wont yeild. Seperating bicycles would alleviate these issues to some degree.

3) Should bicycles be taxed to pay for the roads they use? Or should they
be exempt from taxes, as they are now? What is the rationale?

NO!!!!!!!! Realisticly, most bike riders have cars too. If anything, we deserve a rebate.
we pay taxes for our cars already but use them much less thereby not contributing to the
things cars are taxed for.

4) Should bicycles be registered and cyclists licensed, as motor vehicles
and their operators are? Or should they continue to be unregulated, as they are now?
What is the rationale?

NO, NO, NO !!!!
No more government interference !!! What possible good could come of this? I truly
believe it would be the death knell for non-competative cycling. Any chance of it ever
gain popularity would die at the writ of some useless, bloated political agencies meddling.

5) Should bicycles be insured, as motor vehicles are? Or should they be
uninsured, as they are now? What is the rationale?

NO !! NO !! No !!!
See above !!!!
The government is never at a loss for squeezing money from people but some 'issues'
(even though this is not an issue to me) cant be solved by tithing money to a corporation
for a problem that doesnt exist.
Who is going to buy a bike knowing you have to buy insurance on it ?? Maybe 1/5th of the
people who do now ?
I personally would never pay for insurance or registration type stuff and I cannot see
police wanting to enforce something this ridiculous.



.............

3) Should bicycles be taxed to pay for the roads they use? Or should they be exempt from taxes, as they are now? What is the rationale?

Hate to burst your bubble, but if you're a homeowner, you're already paying for most of the roads you drive on. Tenants also pay, but through their landlord. And if you also pay income taxes of any kind, join the club.

The gasoline taxes (motor vehicle fuel excise tax) you hear so much about are "highway taxes" collected to build and maintain the highways (mostly the interstates). That same pot of money is also used to pay for mass transit projects, and whatever pork the politician needs to buy your vote.

In Maryland, bicyclists are permitted on all roads with posted speed limits of 50 mph or less, so the roads I ride aren't funded with highway taxes.

To answer your question: No, because bicyclists are already taxed.

Do the diligence on the topic before you post would be nice.


Are bicycles vehicles? Or are bicycles something else-- something in between a vehicle and a pedestrian?

(Motor) Vehicles are required to be registered and insured, to pay taxes for road maintenance, and operators are required to be licensed. None of these requirements are applicable to bicycles. And while bicycles are subject to the traffic regulations, they are also permitted on sidewalks with pedestrians, while (motor) vehicles are not.

And while bicyclists often claim that bicycles are vehicles, and therefore have all of the rights that operators of other vehicles enjoy, they also often attempt to evade the responsibilities-- observance of traffic regulations, for example-- that are incumbent upon operators of other vehicles. Some cyclists want to have their cake and eat it too-- bicycles are vehicles when it gives them certain rights, but bicycles are not vehicles when it imposes certain responsibilities on them.

So what are bicycles-- Vehicles? A special class of vehicles? Or neither vehicle nor pedestrian?

Vehicle is defined as -
1 any device or contrivance for carrying or conveying persons or objects, esp. over land or in space, as an automobile, bicycle, sled, or spacecraft
2 a means by which thoughts are expressed or made known !music as the vehicle for one's ideas"
3 in a metaphor, that word or term whose usual, literal meaning is applied in a figurative, nonliteral way to the TENOR (sense 3) !in “all the world's a stage”, “world” is the tenor and “stage” is the vehicle"
4 a play, film, etc. thought of as a means of communication or as a means of presenting a specified actor or company
5 Painting a liquid, as water or oil, with which pigments are mixed for use
6 Pharmacy a substance, as a syrup, in which medicines are given

Bike are vehicles.... slam dunk...no question.. All states recognize bikes as Vehicles



And what are the implications of that classification? For example....

1) Should bicycles be subject to all of the traffic regulations that other vehicles are subject to? Or should some of the traffic regulations be adapted to meet the needs of bicycles? What is the rationale?

What part of vehicle law don’t you understand? All vehicles have to obey vehicle laws. When on the roadway.



2) Should bicycles continue to use a combination of roads, bike lanes, and sidewalks, as they do now? Or should bicycle-specific facilities-- as see in some European cities-- be developed to separate bicycles from both motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic? What is the rationale?

It really would be nice if you only ask one question at time….

First answer is Yes.

Second Yes if the conditions warrant the facility.

Third Read AASHTO, UK, and most state guidelines and modal plans and you will know.


[ATTN VC Evangelists: I realize this question brings VC into the mix, and that's OK, but PLEASE respect the topic of this thread-- it's not about VC, it's asking a number of questions-- and PLEASE don't hijack this thread for VC evangelism. Make your point, one post should be more than enough to do it, but don't hijack. Fair enough? Thanks!]



3) Should bicycles be taxed to pay for the roads they use? Or should they be exempt from taxes, as they are now? What is the rationale?

One they are just as cars are. Gas tax does not even come close to covering the cost or roads.

Two sales tax you pay on the bike, parts and your income tax and property tax are being used for roads. Do you pay any Tax on your car each year…nope. You most likely pay for tabs or license but ask your state what that goes to? Most of money spent on roads is from general funds.

Three call your congressman and Senator.


4) Should bicycles be registered and cyclists licensed, as motor vehicles and their operators are? Or should they continue to be unregulated, as they are now? What is the rationale?

Cars are registered for police and insurance tracking purposes. What would it hurt if bikes were too…but think of the how much time it would take to tack them the cost to the government would almost be more than the cost of the bike.

Don’t confuse the terms registered and Regulated. Bike are regulated now. Registration is by state choice.

Rationale? …. Not enough space here.



5) Should bicycles be insured, as motor vehicles are? Or should they be uninsured, as they are now? What is the rationale?

Define insured! From theft, vandalism, driving it into a wall...is your choice just as it is with a car.

If you are asking about insurance to cover if you injure someone or damage property while riding. Most homeowners policies cover that now. So if you have it you are covered. If you don’t you should or have the cash in the bank to pay the damages.

Rationale…….. common sense…if you are part of a community you have to hold up your part and be responsible.

Too much for one thread. Interesting topic. But too much for one thread.

Cheers,
Dusk

ya gotta point there

SAME RULES, SAME RIGHTS, SAME ROAD!

Keep Cycling!

Perhaps if insurance is made optional, rather than mandatory, jail sentences should apply where a cyclist causes damage or injury and is uninsured and unable to pay for the damages.
I believe you have your lycra in a bunch over your own imagined nightmare. Your proposal is a draconian solution for a non-existant problem.

I believe you have your lycra in a bunch over your own imagined nightmare. Your proposal is a draconian solution for a non-existant problem.My own nightmare-- real, not imagined-- is that I don't have health insurance, and won't have health insurance anytime soon. So if I get hit by a car, I'm going to have to hope that the driver has insurance to pay my expenses.

And this woman's injuries (http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=42039&category=22101) are an actually-existing problem. Now maybe the cyclist who hit her wasn't at fault, so there's no requirement for him to pay for her injuries. Or maybe the cyclist who hit her is covered by his auto policy, so there's no problem. But several people have suggested that requiring cyclists to carry insurance would force poor people off their bikes. So if somebody who can't afford insurance injures somebody, is that just the breaks for the injured person? Should we therefore allow people like me, who can't afford auto insurance, to drive uninsured? Especially considering that I've *never* injured somebody else, the "potential" for me to injure somebody else is also a "non-existent problem."

Oh, and I can't afford lycra either. Or tires. Or a helmet. Or a lock.

My own nightmare-- real, not imagined-- is that I don't have health insurance, and won't have health insurance anytime soon. So if I get hit by a car, I'm going to have to hope that the driver has insurance to pay my expenses.
Uh yeah, that explains why you propose mandatory insurance or jail sentences for all other cyclists. Maybe that makes real good sense to the members of your good idea club.


Oh, and I can't afford lycra either. Or tires. Or a helmet. Or a lock.
Sounds like you should be mandated to get them anyhow or go straight to jail.

Uh yeah, that explains why you propose mandatory insurance or jail sentences for all other cyclists. Maybe that makes real good sense to the members of your good idea club.No, actually, the fact that 45 million working poor-- including me-- have no access to health insurance is why I propose that cyclists should have the option of purchasing insurance.

I suggested that perhaps one way to allow people to choose not to be insured would be to impose jail sentences for those situations where a cyclist is negligent and uninsured and incapable of paying the other person's damages.

But you think it's a bad idea to jail people, so I'll listen to other ideas. What do you propose should be done in those situations where a bicyclist injures somebody and is uninsured and unable to pay for the other person's injuries?



Sounds like you should be mandated to get them anyhow or go straight to jail.Well, if lycra will prevent me from passing financial liability for my negligence onto the victim, perhaps I should be mandated to wear it.

What do you propose should be done in those situations where a bicyclist injures somebody and is uninsured and unable to pay for the other person's injuries?
I propose you think up solutions for problems that actually exist somewhere besides your fevered imagination.

And wake up from your current nightmare.

I propose you think up solutions for problems that actually exist somewhere besides your fevered imagination.

And wake up from your current nightmare.So if I'm imagining it, and it never happens, then passing a draconian law would have absolutely NO impact on any cyclist ever, and therefore, there's no reason to oppose the law.

So if I'm imagining it, and it never happens, then passing a draconian law would have absolutely NO impact on any cyclist ever, and therefore, there's no reason to oppose the law.
Just imagine there is a mandatory law in place that makes you happy and the issue is resolved. What's your next big solution in search of a problem?

Just imagine there is a mandatory law in place that makes you happy and the issue is resolved. What's your next big solution in search of a problem?Is that the problem I like to Bike? No imagination? Because you didn't actually come up with any ideas of your own.

I know, it's all imaginary. Until the day some guy on a bike comes speeding around a blind corner, knocks you onto the pavement where you split your head open-- or if you're lucky, you just need back surgery, like the woman who was hit by that real, not imagined, bicyclist.

So you get knocked down, and injured, and one day, after you've recovered a bit, you come to me, the town attorney, to see about getting the guy to pay your medical bills and lost wages. So I look into it, and I discover the guy has no insurance, because he can't afford a car. In fact, he's so poor he can't even afford lycra, even though everybody knows that all REAL cyclists wear lycra. So I tell you there's nothing I can do for you, because he doesn't have insurance, and he doesn't own anything for me to take. You ask me to sue him anyway, just to teach him a lesson, and I remind you that my fee is $200 per hour, and that I'll be needing that upfront. So you walk away, because you can't afford to pay $200 per hour when there's no recovery at the end, and you get stuck with the medical bills and lost wages, all because some guy with no insurance and no assets didn't care about things like negligence.

Yeah, but that never happens in the real world, does it? It's all just in my fevered imagination. Uh huh.

This is an interesting thread. I especially like the point that most bicyclists are already paying, through other taxes, to fund roadways, so an additional tax on bicyles would seem to be double-dipping, especially considering the minimal impact that bikes have on roads. (BTW, I think gas taxes are entirely justified; I even thought so when I still had a car. Cars are heavily subsidized by the rest of society, and it's only right that drivers pay at least some of the huge costs of maintaning that infrastructure, since they're the major beneficiary. It's not like most roads are built with bikes in mind.) And, as far as I know, every state in the US recognizes bicycles as vehicles, with all the legal rights and responsibilities thereof. In view of our rights and responsibilities, cyclists should always obey all traffic laws, even the irritating one that involves coming to a complete stop at stop signs, and if a motorist tells you to get off the road, you can tell him to f*** off with full confidence that the law is on your side, as long as you're not on the freeway. As far as registration is concerned, why bother? It costs the state too much, and, personally, two of the many things I find attractive about bicycles is that they're very inexpensive and only as regulated as necessary, and I'd hate to mess that up. So that's MY $.02.

My own nightmare-- real, not imagined-- is that I don't have health insurance, and won't have health insurance anytime soon. So if I get hit by a car, I'm going to have to hope that the driver has insurance to pay my expenses.

And this woman's injuries (http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=42039&category=22101) ... So if somebody who can't afford insurance injures somebody, is that just the breaks for the injured person?...

Oh, and I can't afford lycra either. Or tires. Or a helmet. Or a lock.

That's pretty much real life. If a car driver has no insurance and, injures you, you can sue them. However, if they are poor and have nothing you're SOL. It's just part of life.

That's pretty much real life. If a car driver has no insurance and, injures you, you can sue them. However, if they are poor and have nothing you're SOL. It's just part of life.
It is s part of life until extrapolated into Blue Order's ongoing nightmare. Then it is a conjured world where there is a credible risk to non insured people of significant monetary damage caused by non-insured penniless shiftless bicyclists.

1) a) Should bicycles be subject to all of the traffic regulations that other vehicles are subject to? b) Or should some of the traffic regulations be adapted to meet the needs of bicycles? c) What is the rationale?

a) They already are.
b) They already are.
c) I don't know, but I suppose most of the rationale has to do with safety--how much damage a motor vehicle can cause and how much danger you can get into being on a bike


2) a) Should bicycles continue to use a combination of roads, bike lanes, and sidewalks, as they do now? b) Or should bicycle-specific facilities-- as see in some European cities-- be developed to separate bicycles from both motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic? c) What is the rationale?

a) Yes.
b) Yes.
c) Why not have more choices?


3) a) Should bicycles be taxed to pay for the roads they use? b) Or should they be exempt from taxes, as they are now? c) What is the rationale?

a) No.
b) Yes, and they should also receive tax credits.
c) Bicycling should be encouraged through incentives because bicycling benefits the public good. It creates a healthier populace (exercise to combat the obesity epidemic), helps with traffic congestion, and pollution, and the use/dependence on oil (foreign or domestic). All of these can save money for everyone in the long run.


4) a) Should bicycles be registered and cyclists licensed, as motor vehicles and their operators are? b) Or should they continue to be unregulated, as they are now? c) What is the rationale?

a) No.
b) Yes.
c) See #c in all the questions above. Also, bikes are a primary mode of transportation for children. Do we really want to subject children to all of this?


5) a) Should bicycles be insured, as motor vehicles are? b) Or should they be uninsured, as they are now? c) What is the rationale?
a) Insurance should be optional
b) You can already be insured if you want it.
c) You can already buy insurance to protect you from loss (renter's or homeowner's insurance), from medical bills (health insurance), for the cost of death (life insurance), and other types of insurance.

Are bicycles vehicles? Or are bicycles something else-- something in between a vehicle and a pedestrian?

In law? Depends on your local laws. I live in Ontario, so for me, yes.
In practice? Depends on usage.


So what are bicycles-- Vehicles? A special class of vehicles? Or neither vehicle nor pedestrian?

Any vehicle is a "special class" of vehicle. While most traffic laws apply to all vehicles, many apply only to some. For example: public transit vehicles, cars with more than one passenger, emergency vehicles, slow-moving vehicles. I don't think you thought this through... a "special class" of vehicle is still consistent with being "a vehicle". Moot distinction under most circumstances.


1) Should bicycles be subject to all of the traffic regulations that other vehicles are subject to? Or should some of the traffic regulations be adapted to meet the needs of bicycles? What is the rationale?

Yes and yes. For effective yet safe use of roads, bikes (on roads) should be subject to all traffic regulations. For effective yet safe use of roads, some regulations will apply only to bikes and some will not. For example, lighting requirements are different for bikes than for cars.



2) Should bicycles continue to use a combination of roads, bike lanes, and sidewalks, as they do now? Or should bicycle-specific facilities-- as see in some European cities-- be developed to separate bicycles from both motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic? What is the rationale?

Sidewalk use is already illegal in many places, so your "as they do now" comment doesn't apply universally. Developing bike-specific facilities is not mutually exclusive with road use. I see no point in developing an exclusive general policy, rather we need a range of travel means to accompany all cyclists, allowing for local variations.


3) Should bicycles be taxed to pay for the roads they use? Or should they be exempt from taxes, as they are now? What is the rationale?

I don't know where you are, here bikes are taxed exactly like cars: sales tax at initial purchase price. Period. Gas taxes do not directly go to cities, and thus do not directly support the road infrastructure. For example, I contribute to my local roads exactly the same way a driver does - through property taxes. (Note: some gas tax is now being re-directec to municipalities in Canada, but that is reserves for public transit.)

License and registration fees also go directly to the province, and this do nothing to directly support local roads. In the entire city of Ottawa there is one and only one road under provincial jurisdiction.



4) Should bicycles be registered and cyclists licensed, as motor vehicles and their operators are? Or should they continue to be unregulated, as they are now? What is the rationale?

I'm iffy on this. On the one hand, it seems pointless and would discourage others from cycling. On the other, a cyclist on a major highway could, in theory, start a massive accident. It's been debated before, and I don't really have anything to contribute.



5) Should bicycles be insured, as motor vehicles are? Or should they be uninsured, as they are now? What is the rationale?

I doubt if, in general, cyclists cause enough damage to warrant mandatory insurance. I'm not much for mandatory insurance in most cases anyway.

I think your questions are based on some moot points and/or false dichotomies. Interesting nevertheless.

Do the diligence on the topic before you post would be nice.




Bike are vehicles.... slam dunk...no question.. All states recognize bikes as Vehicles



Speaking of "doing the diligence..."

California defines bicycles NOT as vehicles, but as "human powered devices."

I did a little bit of research; in WA, bikes = pedestrians on sidewalks and in crosswalks; could not find independent verification of what my lawyer told me about also being a pedestrian in the bike lane.

There's a couple of points that always make discussions like this confusing:

1. "Vehicle" is often incorrectly assumed to be synonymous with "motor vehicle". So while bicycles, horse drawn carriage, and cars are all "vehicles", the only one in that list that would be a "motor vehicle" is the car.

2. In all US states, bicyclists have the rights and duties of vehicle drivers. Some states do that by legally defining bicycle as vehicles, in other states (such as California) bicycles are not defined as vehicles (they are "devices" in California), but there's a law giving them the rights and duties of vehicle drivers.

Without reading the mountains of posts in this thread. Here, I'm pretty sure if your riding on roads that does not have a bike path, then your legally considered to have all the responsibilities of a vehicle of the road.

So yes, they can be.

In Oregon, bicycles are legally classified as vehicles (but it is not true that every state views cyclists as vehicles in the legal sense). They are only classified as pedestrians if the cyclist chooses to use the crosswalk or the sidewalk where legal.

Insurance and road taxes are not required for cyclists because so little damage is caused to the road or in a crash by a bicycle, not to mention that cyclists rarely use the interstate, and other roads are paid for using the general fund, to which all tax paying citizens contribute.

Cyclists should follow all applicable traffic laws; if the laws are not enforced, it is because the consequences of breaking traffic laws on a bicycle are little (to everyone but the cyclist) - but cyclists should not complain when the laws are enforced (unless the laws are enforced unevenly, for entrapment purposes).

The laws regarding cyclists are pretty clear, if a bit imperfect in select spots. Where the conflicts occur is how a driving society as a whole treats cyclists on the road and how cyclists should apply their right to the road in a way which maximizes safety and effectiveness. Hence is why the subject always turns toward some aspect of riding style, such as vehicular cycling.

Like it or not, we all pay taxes. Just check out your paycheck stub, or the forms you file quarterly if you're self-employed. Part of those taxes goes toward public use such as road construction and maintenance.

Motor vehicles put much more wear and stress on roads, as other members have noted. I feel this justifies extra taxes paid at the pump. Think about it for a moment: how quickly would a secondary road wear to the point of needing to be rebuilt, if it were used by bicyclists exclusively? Any engineers care to comment?

On the insurance issue: It's required of motor vehicles in most (all?) states simply because motor vehicles cause millions of dollars in property damage every year, and an amount of personal injury and (and the occasional death) that really cannot have a price put on it. That aside, most new cars purchased in this country are financed. The lienholders want their investments protected, and I cannot blame them for that. In MA, there is one legal way to not carry insurance, and that is to post bond with the office of the state treasurer.

Point of interest: In the city of Boston, bike messengers are required to carry liability insurance, more than taxi drivers, I'm told. Their bikes must also be registered with the city, and a plate, (a small plastic affair) must be "permanently affixed to the bicycle". Cities and towns in the state may require bicycles to be registered at their own discretion, under the general laws. Presently, the fee to register a bike may not exceed $2.50. At the moment, I'm not aware of any city or town in the state (Boston excepted for messengers) that requires this.

I'm an engineer (though not in this field). I'd hazard the guess that a standard surface road used exclusively by bicycles (and peds for that matter) would last exactly as long as if it were sitting there totally unused. In other words, any damage to the road would be caused by the foundation shifting over time and the weather, nothing else. But then again, they are built to last 10 years under vehicles weighing several tons and traveling 50 mph.

Given this, it would be ludicrous to suggest that cyclists need to pay a dedicated fee to use the roads. Nobody builds them for us, and what is built for us, whether bike lane or WOL or something else is mostly to alleviate traffic flow problems on a whole; a benefit for both cyclists and motor vehicles. Whatever benefits we recieve are amply covered by general taxes.

Are bicycles vehicles? Or are bicycles something else-- something in between a vehicle and a pedestrian?
Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition:
Bicycle-a vehicle consisting of a tubular metal frame mounted on two large wire spoked wheels, one behind the other, and equipped with handlebars, a saddlelike seat, and foot pedals.

Okay, so the materials are out of date. Webster's says a bicycle is a vehicle. Likewise the Florida Legislature and FDOT.

TITLE XXIII
MOTOR VEHICLES
CHAPTER 316
STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL
316.003 Definitions.--The following words and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this section, except where the context otherwise requires:
(2) BICYCLE.--Every vehicle propelled solely by human power, and every motorized bicycle propelled by a combination of human power and an electric helper motor capable of propelling the vehicle at a speed of not more than 20 miles per hour on level ground upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels, and including any device generally recognized as a bicycle though equipped with two front or two rear wheels. The term does not include such a vehicle with a seat height of no more than 25 inches from the ground when the seat is adjusted to its highest position or a scooter or similar device. No person under the age of 16 may operate or ride upon a motorized bicycle.
(21) MOTOR VEHICLE.--Any self-propelled vehicle not operated upon rails or guideway, but not including any bicycle, motorized scooter, electric personal assistive mobility device, or moped.
316.2065 Bicycle regulations.--
(1) Every person propelling a vehicle by human power has all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under this chapter, except as to special regulations in this chapter, and except as to provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application.


(Motor) Vehicles are required to be registered and insured, to pay taxes for road maintenance, and operators are required to be licensed. None of these requirements are applicable to bicycles. And while bicycles are subject to the traffic regulations, they are also permitted on sidewalks with pedestrians, while (motor) vehicles are not.
Not completely true. Bicycles and bicycling equipment are taxed. We pay sales taxes which go into the general fund and contribute to road building and maintenance. Motor vehicles cause road wear, pollution and sloth of the population in general, which leads to a variety of health problems, both physical and mental, jacking up health care costs, ect. By comparison bicycles cause no road wear, do not contribute significantly to pollution and contribute signifcantly to increased physical activity and physical and mental fitness.

Yes, bicycles are vehicles that can take to the sidewalk in some areas, not in others, but so what? By not having a motor they are not generally deemed blatantly hazardous enough to warrant an blanket ban.


And while bicyclists often claim that bicycles are vehicles, and therefore have all of the rights that operators of other vehicles enjoy, they also often attempt to evade the responsibilities-- observance of traffic regulations, for example-- that are incumbent upon operators of other vehicles. Some cyclists want to have their cake and eat it too-- bicycles are vehicles when it gives them certain rights, but bicycles are not vehicles when it imposes certain responsibilities on them.
Again, not completely true. Many cyclists are just like everybody else in the world, they will break the law to the extent they think they can get away with it for the sake of their own convience. Everybody does this to some extent at one time or another. That's why we have law enforcement, to enforce laws. Certain vehicles, including differing types of motor vehicles, require and have special and specific regulations. Most motor vehicle regulations will apply to bicycles, a few should not, i.e.,
316.183 Unlawful speed.--

........(5) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law........

Notice the impeding paragraph specifies motor vehicle, which a bicycle is not. Obviously a bicycle cannot be expected to keep up with traffic, under most conditions, by design or function.


So what are bicycles-- Vehicles? A special class of vehicles? Or neither vehicle nor pedestrian?
No more, or less, a special class of vehicle than motorcycles or tractor-trailers. Even a Honda Element pulling a utility trailer could fall under a special class of vehicle by having to follow additional regulations.

Definately not pedestrian.


And what are the implications of that classification? For example....

1) Should bicycles be subject to all of the traffic regulations that other vehicles are subject to? Or should some of the traffic regulations be adapted to meet the needs of bicycles? What is the rationale?
As vehicles, bicycles should be subject to all pertinent vehicle regulations. Some traffic laws are not applicable to bicycles. For an example see my above entry in this reply on impeding traffic and it would be completely pointless to require safety equipment mandated for heavy trucks in my Toyota.


2) Should bicycles continue to use a combination of roads, bike lanes, and sidewalks, as they do now? Or should bicycle-specific facilities-- as see in some European cities-- be developed to separate bicycles from both motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic? What is the rationale?
Some local areas already have separate bicycle facilities, but nationwide, they make no sense in the U.S. We haven't spent the last hundred or so years gearing up for this, so separate facilities would require land aquisition, major restructuring of the infrastructure and lots and lots of money. Where would all this money come from? Simply registering bicycles and licensing cyclists are not going to nearly cover it.

Also, there will never be a bicycle specific travel corridor from my house to every destination I will want to attend.


3) Should bicycles be taxed to pay for the roads they use? Or should they be exempt from taxes, as they are now? What is the rationale?
Bicycles and bicycling equipment are taxed. We pay sales taxes which go into the general fund and contribute to road building and maintenance. What is needed is a tax break on commuter related cycling. This would be a step in the right direction to getting more people on bikes and out of their cars.


4) Should bicycles be registered and cyclists licensed, as motor vehicles and their operators are? Or should they continue to be unregulated, as they are now? What is the rationale?
Motor vehicles cause road wear, pollution and sloth of the population in general, which leads to a variety of health problems, both physical and mental, jacking up health care costs, etc. By comparison bicycles cause no road wear, do not contribute significantly to pollution and do contribute signifcantly to increased physical activity and physical and mental fitness.

What would the age cut-off be for licensing? Would children not be allowed to ride bikes? How on earth on you going to license a 4-5 year old? Most American adults who own bikes don't ride seriously. Laws requiring registration and licensing would simply cause a massive bicycle glut at the local landfill or, more likely, would be patently ignored.


5) Should bicycles be insured, as motor vehicles are? Or should they be uninsured, as they are now? What is the rationale?
What would the age cut-off be for insurance? Would children not be allowed to ride bikes? Who on earth is going to underwrite a 4-5 year old? Most American adults who own bikes don't ride seriously. Laws requiring insurance would simply cause a massive bicycle glut at the local landfill or, more likely, would be patently ignored.

Mandated registration, licensing and insurance would just be more regulations passed to make scoff-laws of ordinary citizens. These types of laws are generally passed just so cops can write more tickets, raising more revenue.

While not necessarily true in other parts of the U.S., we have perfectly good cycling facilities here in Florida. They're called streets, roads and highways.

Quoted text is blue and in quotes.


Are bicycles vehicles? Or are bicycles something else-- something in between a vehicle and a pedestrian?

(Motor) Vehicles are required to be registered and insured, to pay taxes for road maintenance, and operators are required to be licensed. None of these requirements are applicable to bicycles. And while bicycles are subject to the traffic regulations, they are also permitted on sidewalks with pedestrians, while (motor) vehicles are not.


Bicycles with wheels over a certain size, are not permitted to ride on sidewalks in some jurisdictions, Ontario, Canada being one of them.

And while bicyclists often claim that bicycles are vehicles, and therefore have all of the rights that operators of other vehicles enjoy, they also often attempt to evade the responsibilities-- observance of traffic regulations, for example-- that are incumbent upon operators of other vehicles. Some cyclists want to have their cake and eat it too-- bicycles are vehicles when it gives them certain rights, but bicycles are not vehicles when it imposes certain responsibilities on them.

So what are bicycles-- Vehicles? A special class of vehicles? Or neither vehicle nor pedestrian?

That depends on the law, in many places they are classed as vehicles, but not as motor vehicles

And what are the implications of that classification? For example....

1) Should bicycles be subject to all of the traffic regulations that other vehicles are subject to? Or should some of the traffic regulations be adapted to meet the needs of bicycles? What is the rationale?


Some regulations do not make sense, for example the 4-way stop, this is usually intended to slow down motor vehicle traffic where drivers thing residential road = drag strip, on a bicycle your not going fast enough to need to be slowed down by this method, and you have much better observation of conditions,
so you do not need to come to a full stop. However until this regulation is changed, we should observe the law appropriately.

2) Should bicycles continue to use a combination of roads, bike lanes, and sidewalks, as they do now? Or should bicycle-specific facilities-- as see in some European cities-- be developed to separate bicycles from both motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic? What is the rationale?
[ATTN VC Evangelists: I realize this question brings VC into the mix, and that's OK, but PLEASE respect the topic of this thread-- it's not about VC, it's asking a number of questions-- and PLEASE don't hijack this thread for VC evangelism. Make your point, one post should be more than enough to do it, but don't hijack. Fair enough? Thanks!]


If ALL road users observe the rules of the road, and are careful around other users of that road, then separate facilities are not needed. However we have idiots in Stupifying Ugly Vehicles that are intent on driving all other users off the road, and that becomes an issue. What I find funny, bike lanes are usually on small side streets that don't really need them, but noticibly absent from arterials where they would do the most good.

3) Should bicycles be taxed to pay for the roads they use? Or should they be exempt from taxes, as they are now? What is the rationale?


I want to treat these together, the cyclist really does not impart much wear on the road, but if paying a licence fee, to get better facilities, then most serious cyclists would probably consider it. However if it's just more tax, with no real benefits, then leave it the way it is now.

4) Should bicycles be registered and cyclists licensed, as motor vehicles and their operators are? Or should they continue to be unregulated, as they are now? What is the rationale?


Licencing isn't entirely a bad idea, it makes it easier to find a stolen bicycle, and shops looking at taking a used bicycle from someone can run the serial number to see if it's stolen. However this can be done now, through the police registry in many cities and towns. As for licencing operators, that's tricky, how do you handle little kids on sidewalk bikes, mind you, it's not a bad idea to require that someone have basic rules of the road knowledge. It also makes it easier for a police officer to use it for identification for a cycling infraction. This could be either implemented as an additional licence class using the motor vehicle licence system or a replacement for it, for those who do not have or want an motor vehicle licence, but if you have a motor vehicle licence, it is considered a motor vehicle / bicycle licence.

5) Should bicycles be insured, as motor vehicles are? Or should they be uninsured, as they are now? What is the rationale?

The risk of doing much damage while on a bicycle, other then self inflicted damage, is fairly low, if it were not, we would see cyclists liability insurance. If you want to insure the bicycle itself it's either already covered under your home/tenants policy or can be added as a rider.

I'm an engineer (though not in this field). I'd hazard the guess that a standard surface road used exclusively by bicycles (and peds for that matter) would last exactly as long as if it were sitting there totally unused. In other words, any damage to the road would be caused by the foundation shifting over time and the weather, nothing else. But then again, they are built to last 10 years under vehicles weighing several tons and traveling 50 mphs.

Our local roads dept. told me that pathways (built to lower standards than roads) typically need replacement due to weathering and/or root damage*, and not due to usage. I can't imaging a standard road construction wouldn't be the same.

(*As in, big nearby trees push roots under the pathways, creating bumps etc. that crack.)

Bicycles with wheels over a certain size, are not permitted to ride on sidewalks in some jurisdictions, Ontario, Canada being one of them.

This seems to be a common misconception. There is no mention of bikes and sidewalk in the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.

The city of Toronto does allow bikes with tires of 20" or less on sidewalks. The city of Ottawa allows NO bikes on sidewalks, not even a kid's trike. Every city will have its own by-law on this.

In NC, bikes are vehicles; prohibited from sidewalks and freeways.
Moving violations are considered traffic offenses, as in a car.
Helmets are enforced for kids under 15.

The only exception to the 'vehicle' classification is under DWI laws, as well as horses and riding lawnmowers... go figure.

I would like to make a couple of points:

1) Accident reporting and resolution is highly slanted for the insurances companies to handle completely and the courts are only used as a last resort. Currently it can be an extra burden on cyclists to go through the court system as a necessary step (assuming auto or home owner insurance does not cover the cyclist.) I think more attention is needed so cyclist can be treated more fairly in the insurance game. Lastly talk to your insurance agent to see if you are covered.
2) Next most people do not consider the cost of the expressway system per car. Expressways average $46 million per mile. Allowing for safe following distance at speeds of 60 mph each car takes up ~a tenth of a mile, that’s ~$46 thousand per car. While you can argue so may thousand of cars can be handled per hour the fact is most people do not want to wait an hour they want to be accommodated when they are there. Or look at it this way take a snap shot of a highway, to get one more car into this picture would require another $46 thousand dollars. We all pay to subsidize this cost.

-=Barry=-

yes we may all need to give up cars....I know thats not possable, just wishfull thinking

see my article http://funnyfarmart.com/HPVpagetwo.htm

Do the diligence on the topic before you post would be nice.

Vehicle is defined as -
1 any device or contrivance for carrying or conveying persons or objects, esp. over land or in space, as an automobile, bicycle, sled, or spacecraft
2 a means by which thoughts are expressed or made known !music as the vehicle for one's ideas"
3 in a metaphor, that word or term whose usual, literal meaning is applied in a figurative, nonliteral way to the TENOR (sense 3) !in “all the world's a stage”, “world” is the tenor and “stage” is the vehicle"
4 a play, film, etc. thought of as a means of communication or as a means of presenting a specified actor or company
5 Painting a liquid, as water or oil, with which pigments are mixed for use
6 Pharmacy a substance, as a syrup, in which medicines are given

Bike are vehicles.... slam dunk...no question.. All states recognize bikes as Vehicles



Opps sorry... In California bicycles are "human powered DEVICES."

But you were the only one to get the following right... And this really is a bad myth held by many motorists... (they do NOT in fact OWN the road)





3) Should bicycles be taxed to pay for the roads they use? Or should they be exempt from taxes, as they are now? What is the rationale?

One they are just as cars are. Gas tax does not even come close to covering the cost or roads.

Two sales tax you pay on the bike, parts and your income tax and property tax are being used for roads. Do you pay any Tax on your car each year…nope. You most likely pay for tabs or license but ask your state what that goes to? Most of money spent on roads is from general funds.

Three call your congressman and Senator.



Bottom line is that roads are funded primarily through developer fees... thus homeowners are the primary source of revenue for roads. State hiways and Interstates get funded out of general taxes and property taxes. As "Dusk" points out, there are not enough fees associated with the automobile to even begin to cover the funding for roads... most of the taxes and fees for autos go to support motor vehicle departments... which were created to support autos.

A small (very small) bit of tax, based on sales tax for gas and oil, does go into the general fund.

Different states break down their funding in different ways, but generally what is stated above, is the situation.

My two cents:

!) Bicyles are vehicles?

Under the UN's Vienna Convention for Road Traffic 1968, a bicycle is recognized internationally as a vehicle. And both USA and Canada (but not Iraq) are signatories to that International Agreement.

So the bicycle is internationally recognized by the United Nations as a vehicle and therefore cyclists have the same rights and responsibility of a motorist, although the law varies slightly among membership countries. So, if you take your bike to China, UK, or even Iran and run through a red traffic light, chances are you may be ticketed by the police in the host country.

See the list of signatory countries here, in case you are travelling abroad:
http://www.data-detective.com/unc.html


2) Should bicycles be taxed to pay for the roads they use? Or should they be exempt from taxes, as they are now? What is the rationale?

Taxes are really more of a political ploy than a rationale policy as far as I am concerned. Here in Canada, the only tax-exempted transportation is public transit - no gst nor pst on transit fares. AND, cities get a gst rebate from Canada Revenue Agency on transit equipment such as buses purchased by all Transit Authorities. AND, beginning July this year, transit passes are tax deductible for income taxes.

Other vehicles that have tax advantages are hybrid vehicles, up to $1,000 tax rebate. I do not personally agree with it because hybrid SUV's also qualify but not the fuel efficient Smart cars.

Here in Canada, bicycles are fully taxed - everything from accessories, parts, maintenance labour to the bicycle itself. Even membership due of cycling associations are subject to 6% GST. You may say that bicycle fuel, ie, the food you eat, may be tax free, but if you "re-fuel" at a restaurant, the 6% GST and 8% PST still apply. At least Congress give some tax breaks to commuting cyclists, but not the Canadian Parliament.

Yes and Yes.

Sorry you are destitute and uninsured Blue Order. No need to take it out on the rest of us!

Bikes are vehicles. Cyclists should obey traffic laws just like all other road users. But, nobody obeys them all so why single out cyclists?

Bike lanes are not a segregated facility. Fully segregated facilities will only function if the are constructed throughout a metropolitan area. The problem in this country is 1) the lack of commuting cyclist to justify a fully segregated system and 2) The half baked hodgepodge of bike accomodations foisted on the community by politicians to say 'look, we did something!'.

Bikes should not require registration or licensing since they do not take up the space or cause the infrastructure wear of other road users. Though, a trackable microchip embedded in the bike to deter theft would not be a bad idea......

Any damage caused by a cyclist can currently be handled in civil court.

Mr. President, yes, bicycles are vehicles. They are very distinctive from motor vehicles, so you can easily write same or separate rules for bicycles, if needed. You can tax bicycles, as well. It's all depends on what you are trying to acheive with it.

Are bicycles vehicles? Or are bicycles something else-- something in between a vehicle and a pedestrian?

3) Should bicycles be taxed to pay for the roads they use? Or should they be exempt from taxes, as they are now? What is the rationale?


4) Should bicycles be registered and cyclists licensed, as motor vehicles and their operators are? Or should they continue to be unregulated, as they are now? What is the rationale?


5) Should bicycles be insured, as motor vehicles are? Or should they be uninsured, as they are now? What is the rationale?

1. Bicycles are subject to regulation in many countries. I think common sense and regulation are a good guide after all it is your body. Cops know this and can cite me at anytime, however they know common sense when they see it. I also find it amazing you don't point out the lack of laws when a motor vehicle hits or squeezes a cyclist.

2. Is this for real. How the heck are you going to get to the strip mall.

3.This is one bizairo post, First bicycles would not even need a road, they can use trials. So what do you want to tax us for. So are you going to tax the Pedestrian for using the sidewalk also?

4. In Tempe AZ they make you registor your bicycle by law. This cuts down on theft.
Well you have seen on your bicycle how well licensed motor drivers obey and act? What does a license really do? Answer track whether or not if you can drive a guided missle.


5. My rationale is I ride a bicycle so I don't have to pay insurance.
Are you for real?

I know I am going against the grain here.

I say, same roads same rules.

Mandatory operators license.
I think the written test to receive a Bicycle operators license should be combined
with the same written test for a motor vehicle operators license.
This way, motor vehicle operators would be required to know the laws regarding bicycles and cyclist would be required to know the laws regarding motor vehicles.
And it should not be like "oh by the way bikes are alowwed on the road too"
If a person dont know all the laws regarding cycling on the road he dont get a Motor vehicle Operators license, and if a cyclist dont know all the laws regarding motor vehicles, he dont get a bicyle operators license.
I find it totally mind boggling how many cyclist either don’t know the laws in their area, or bend and twist and adjust them in their mind to fit there own riding style,
and then complain because “cagers” don’t know the laws.
And Yes this includes children! Why should children be allowed to ride on the roads with out knowing the laws?
Same road same rules.

Mandatory Liability insurance.
Why should a cyclist not have to pay for damages to my property just
because it’s less damage than a motor vehicle would have caused?
Why do I have to go to court every time another cyclist damages my property?
What if some knucklehead on a bike runs a stop sign and plows into me on my carbon bike? I end up with a broken bike and a broken arm.
Now I have to take him to civil court, hope he owns a home, and doesn’t rent?
He is operating a vehicle on public roads just like a car.
Same road same rules.

Mandatory vehicle safety inspections.
This is a real sore spot for me.
I had a cyclist with no brakes, pile into the side of my “SUV”.
It cost me $400.00 to repair my vehicle.
My only recourse was civil court?
Same road same rules

Mandatory vehicle registration, with mandatory License plates.
We need a way to identify some of the knuckleheads riding on the roads that give the law-abiding cyclist a bad name.
My dogs are required to be registered and wear a tag.
Why is it harder to register a bike and put tags on it than a dog?
Same road same rules.

No Drunk Riding on public Roads!!
Jeeze why do so many people think its ok ride a bike drunk?
Same road same rules.

No running stops signs or red lights.
Why are so many cyclists in such a hurry?
Why can’t they take a couple of seconds out of their life and obey the laws, and be safe?

I agree with everything, except--inspections. That would actually cost too much tax money to implement and maintain--a waste of money. License plates, no. Registration, yes. Simple registration would cut down on thefts, although I haven't seen any hard evidence of this since very few places require it, so it's just my speculation. An endorsement on your license such as a motorcycle is required now, would go a long way to providing basic knowledge of the road--for motorists and cyclists.

I agree with everything, except--inspections. That would actually cost too much tax money to implement and maintain--a waste of money. License plates, no. Registration, yes. Simple registration would cut down on thefts, although I haven't seen any hard evidence of this since very few places require it, so it's just my speculation. An endorsement on your license such as a motorcycle is required now, would go a long way to providing basic knowledge of the road--for motorists and cyclists.
You have valid points,
Except tax payers dont pay for vehicle safety inspections.
I dont know about other states, but it is a source of revenue for the state of Texas.
Safety inspections are done by a Licensed private business and payed for by the vehicle owner.
Why no license plates, why should motor vehicles be required to have plates ,or trailers or mopeds.
Why every thing except bicycles?

I know I am going against the grain here.

No running stops signs or red lights.
Why are so many cyclists in such a hurry?
Why can’t they take a couple of seconds out of their life and obey the laws, and be safe?

I will agree with you on red lights, the problem is, around here, if someone whines to a politician that someone actually went speeding (40.1 km/h in a 40km/h zone), the politician responds with one or more stop signs to slow traffic down and shut up the complainer. So you get some streets where there is a 4-way stop sign every block, which is fine when all you need to do is move your foot from gas to brake and back, but it's a major PITA when your on a bike. I would estimate that 75% of all stop signs in this city, are politically based, rather then traffic engineering based.