Advocacy & Safety - Bike registration editorial in paper
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.
05-16-09, 05:29 PM
Bike registration editorial
05-17-09, 02:38 AM
Wow! That is some strange reasoning.
At least it's not any of the same old silly arguments. It's a new and different silly argument.
I confess that, having read the article twice, I'm still baffled as to why bikes should be registered. There is no correlation between his argument and any benefits which might be gained.
05-17-09, 05:31 AM
I think the guy is saying.. Motorists are doing in cyclists.. They shoudl pay for their maltreatment of cyclists , in their care registrations.. Hurt a cyclist, and maybe the automobile owner will have to pay more for their behavior.?... And make amends for harming cyclists.?...
Not endorsing registration for cyclists. But, i think if it should rid the motorists of the concept, cyclists don't pay for the roads. And give us equal rights to the road in the minds of motorists.... That has some merit....
05-17-09, 07:18 AM
[Edit: I see Kuan's point in Post 9. I misunderstood because I just scanned it. My mistake. The writer is calling for registration to give cyclists money and to force people to use all modes of transportation. It's not realistic (at least here in the US), but it's a different way of making people think about the issues, at least those people who bother to read the whole article.]
Cyclists should follow the same traffic rules as any other road user. But only when we kill and maim as many fellow road as motorist do, should we be subject to the same licensing, registration and insurance laws that motorists face.
If motorists want to save on registration and insurance, they should pick a mode of transportation that doesn't impose such high costs on others.
05-17-09, 08:15 AM
i confess that, having read the article twice, i'm still baffled as to why bikes should be registered. There is no correlation between his argument and any benefits which might be gained.
05-17-09, 08:17 AM
Ok after reading this article, which was very confusing, I think the main point is not really about the bike registration. What it tries to say is that everyone and that includes both cyclists and drivers, should experience other modes of transportation. As part of the training they should spent certain amount of time on a bicycle, motorcycle and car. The side effect of this requirement is that cyclists should also have a license, so that this law can be applied to them.
That being said, this editorial is a classical example of just writing stuff without proof reading it first yourself and letting others to proof read it.
The first paragraph reads
AS A cyclist, I say bike registration is a must — but not so narrow-minded car drivers can ensure that the few cyclists who flout the law can be held accountable. No, so we can be paid by the State Government for contributing to the betterment of our city and our own health.
So the writer thinks that making everyone spend 100 hours behind the wheel of a semi-truck will make the roads safer?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.