It's time for bicycles to have tags and registration fees, and pay the equivalent of fuel taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually if you are commuting daily, the insurance part makes sense as what if they hit and damage a car or pedestrian?

If they own a home, or rent an apt and have rental insurance, they will be covered, because those include general liability.

This is about folks who don't carry even renters insurance? IOW the poor folks on crappy bikes? Thats who you want to take mobility options away from, because they might scratch your fender?

This only works if you can find them- but the one who hit my car (while I was stopped at a light) rode away without sharing any information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you use the road, you need to help fund it. Right now, cyclists are taking advantage of a loophole that allows them to use roads paid for by automobile registration and tag fees and fuel taxes. This needs to stop.

Bikes need to be registered, tagged and insured, and there needs to be some sort of fuel tax equivalent paid.

I'm not suggesting it should be comparable to vehicles, because their impact on the roads is much smaller. But it should be scaled down appropriately to fit. A car might cost a few hundred dollars to register every couple years. A bike might perhaps cost $20. Same for fuel tax equivalent, maybe $5 annually.


This needs to become a reality.

Do guns first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The idea of bicycle insurance is just so dumb. Do you even understand risk profiles? The probability of doing any meaningful damage is... close to nothing. Look at how much damage car drivers do. Running into other cars, people, inanimate objects, etc. And since you’re driving ever more aggressive large objects, the amount of damage that you do to things keeps growing. That is why you need insurance and people on bikes don’t.

I was a witness to an accident where a bicycle hit a pedestrian (bike didn't stop) and the pedestrian's collarbone was broken. The bicyclist left before the police and ambulance arrived. The victim was a student without health insurance and had to drop out of college due to the cost of her medical treatment.

[Anonymous]

Tax strollers. You should have a higher tax depending on how many cup holders it has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea of bicycle insurance is just so dumb. Do you even understand risk profiles? The probability of doing any meaningful damage is... close to nothing. Look at how much damage car drivers do. Running into other cars, people, inanimate objects, etc. And since you’re driving ever more aggressive large objects, the amount of damage that you do to things keeps growing. That is why you need insurance and people on bikes don’t.

I was a witness to an accident where a bicycle hit a pedestrian (bike didn't stop) and the pedestrian's collarbone was broken. The bicyclist left before the police and ambulance arrived. The victim was a student without health insurance and had to drop out of college due to the cost of her medical treatment.

Now do hammers. Maybe we should register those and have plates on then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if my income taxes paid for a large part of the roads in DC? You can keep 395/695.

Also, you sound stressed and unreasonable. A bike ride might do you some good.

NP here. Bike rides allow fresh air into the stressed mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually if you are commuting daily, the insurance part makes sense as what if they hit and damage a car or pedestrian?

If they own a home, or rent an apt and have rental insurance, they will be covered, because those include general liability.

This is about folks who don't carry even renters insurance? IOW the poor folks on crappy bikes? Thats who you want to take mobility options away from, because they might scratch your fender?

This only works if you can find them- but the one who hit my car (while I was stopped at a light) rode away without sharing any information.

So than an insurance requirement would not have helped you?

Its kind of concusing that people keep going back and forth between insurance requirements and tags. They present different issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea of bicycle insurance is just so dumb. Do you even understand risk profiles? The probability of doing any meaningful damage is... close to nothing. Look at how much damage car drivers do. Running into other cars, people, inanimate objects, etc. And since you’re driving ever more aggressive large objects, the amount of damage that you do to things keeps growing. That is why you need insurance and people on bikes don’t.

I was a witness to an accident where a bicycle hit a pedestrian (bike didn't stop) and the pedestrian's collarbone was broken. The bicyclist left before the police and ambulance arrived. The victim was a student without health insurance and had to drop out of college due to the cost of her medical treatment.

Was this in DC? I would think I would have heard about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea of bicycle insurance is just so dumb. Do you even understand risk profiles? The probability of doing any meaningful damage is... close to nothing. Look at how much damage car drivers do. Running into other cars, people, inanimate objects, etc. And since you’re driving ever more aggressive large objects, the amount of damage that you do to things keeps growing. That is why you need insurance and people on bikes don’t.

I was a witness to an accident where a bicycle hit a pedestrian (bike didn't stop) and the pedestrian's collarbone was broken. The bicyclist left before the police and ambulance arrived. The victim was a student without health insurance and had to drop out of college due to the cost of her medical treatment.

How would a bicycle insurance have made a difference in this situation? There are all kinds of irresponsible people on bicycles and behind wheels. Cars do a lot more damage when operated by such people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you should be very careful what you wish for. Its clear that you are anti-bike. If a user fee is established on bicycles, you'll begin to see many, many more bike lanes pop up. And I can assure you that bicyclists' contributions into the kitty will not cover the cost of those bike lanes. As it stands now, there's a justification to develop bike lanes using automobile user fees in instances that it would actually improve conditions for motorists, and thus be a benefit for motorists (i.e., reduced travel time, increased travel time reliability, etc). Once you begin placing user fees on bicyclists, you no longer need to view planning that way.

I'm just going to point out here that automobile user fees don't come anywhere near covering the cost of the roads, anyway. But I'll be happy to join the OP in a campaign to raise the gas tax, parking fees, and vehicle licensing and registration fees.

I'm the PP you're quoting. You're correct, there's a shorfall -- its very easy to track at the Federal level, in particular, and see that the General Fund of Treasury/ budgetary offsets are making up roughly 40 percent of the Highway Trust Fund currently, but there still exists a user system veil for HTF protectors, of which there is a very active and well-funded lobby. Once you begin taking fees from elsewhere, that gets blown to pieces.

With you that we need to raise the federal gas tax!

Bikes aren’t allowed on highways anyway. How are local roads paid for?

Here's some information about the Highway Trust Fund: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-highway-trust-fund-and-how-it-financed

Spoiler alert: it doesn't just fund interstate highways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you should be very careful what you wish for. Its clear that you are anti-bike. If a user fee is established on bicycles, you'll begin to see many, many more bike lanes pop up. And I can assure you that bicyclists' contributions into the kitty will not cover the cost of those bike lanes. As it stands now, there's a justification to develop bike lanes using automobile user fees in instances that it would actually improve conditions for motorists, and thus be a benefit for motorists (i.e., reduced travel time, increased travel time reliability, etc). Once you begin placing user fees on bicyclists, you no longer need to view planning that way.

I'm just going to point out here that automobile user fees don't come anywhere near covering the cost of the roads, anyway. But I'll be happy to join the OP in a campaign to raise the gas tax, parking fees, and vehicle licensing and registration fees.

I'm the PP you're quoting. You're correct, there's a shorfall -- its very easy to track at the Federal level, in particular, and see that the General Fund of Treasury/ budgetary offsets are making up roughly 40 percent of the Highway Trust Fund currently, but there still exists a user system veil for HTF protectors, of which there is a very active and well-funded lobby. Once you begin taking fees from elsewhere, that gets blown to pieces.

With you that we need to raise the federal gas tax!

Bikes aren’t allowed on highways anyway. How are local roads paid for?

Here's some information about the Highway Trust Fund: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-highway-trust-fund-and-how-it-financed

Spoiler alert: it doesn't just fund interstate highways.

I couldn't tell from there. How much does that fund pay for maintenance of 14th St NW for example? Or is that all DC funded?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys know that in MoCo, bike registration is already mandatory right? It's a criminal offense to not register your bicycle. Here's a video where a bicyclist was given a CRIMINAL citation for it.

https://youtu.be/28w6xvRj9EM?t=248

This needs to happen a LOT more often. Cyclists think they're above the law. Not just traffic laws, but all laws governing everything having to do with a bike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea of bicycle insurance is just so dumb. Do you even understand risk profiles? The probability of doing any meaningful damage is... close to nothing. Look at how much damage car drivers do. Running into other cars, people, inanimate objects, etc. And since you’re driving ever more aggressive large objects, the amount of damage that you do to things keeps growing. That is why you need insurance and people on bikes don’t.

I was a witness to an accident where a bicycle hit a pedestrian (bike didn't stop) and the pedestrian's collarbone was broken. The bicyclist left before the police and ambulance arrived. The victim was a student without health insurance and had to drop out of college due to the cost of her medical treatment.

Now do hammers. Maybe we should register those and have plates on then.

If you can't seem to keep from hitting innocent people with your hammer, then yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you use the road, you need to help fund it. Right now, cyclists are taking advantage of a loophole that allows them to use roads paid for by automobile registration and tag fees and fuel taxes. This needs to stop.

Bikes need to be registered, tagged and insured, and there needs to be some sort of fuel tax equivalent paid.

I'm not suggesting it should be comparable to vehicles, because their impact on the roads is much smaller. But it should be scaled down appropriately to fit. A car might cost a few hundred dollars to register every couple years. A bike might perhaps cost $20. Same for fuel tax equivalent, maybe $5 annually.


This needs to become a reality.

Do guns first.

Huh? What's one have to do with the other?

And yes, do both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea of bicycle insurance is just so dumb. Do you even understand risk profiles? The probability of doing any meaningful damage is... close to nothing. Look at how much damage car drivers do. Running into other cars, people, inanimate objects, etc. And since you’re driving ever more aggressive large objects, the amount of damage that you do to things keeps growing. That is why you need insurance and people on bikes don’t.

I was a witness to an accident where a bicycle hit a pedestrian (bike didn't stop) and the pedestrian's collarbone was broken. The bicyclist left before the police and ambulance arrived. The victim was a student without health insurance and had to drop out of college due to the cost of her medical treatment.

Was this in DC? I would think I would have heard about it.

You just DID hear about it. Right now.

See how that works?