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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

All cyclists? Such generalizations make you seem unreasonably hostile. Why are you so hostile?

[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.

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.

JFC, are you dense?

Insurance would've paid for the victims injuries and treatment, as it does in car crashes.

Stop it with the "but but but but cars!!!" We're not talking about cars. We're talking about bikes, and why riders should be required to carry insurance. And the above is exactly why they should be required to

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

All cyclists? Such generalizations make you seem unreasonably hostile. Why are you so hostile?

Just the ones who don't comply with the laws.

So I guess that's *only* most of them. Not all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

All cyclists? Such generalizations make you seem unreasonably hostile. Why are you so hostile?

Just the ones who don't comply with the laws.

So I guess that's *only* most of them. Not all.

So you are revising your bs statement? Why so hostile?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

JFC, are you dense?

Insurance would've paid for the victims injuries and treatment, as it does in car crashes.

Stop it with the "but but but but cars!!!" We're not talking about cars. We're talking about bikes, and why riders should be required to carry insurance. And the above is exactly why they should be required to

I bet you can't come up with even a handful of actual examples or citations of cyclists causing injuries or damage to cars or pedestrians.

And I bet you are a road rage riven suburban SUV driver who is a threat to everyone else on the road whenever you are behind the wheel.

But we should be worried about people who bike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

JFC, are you dense?

Insurance would've paid for the victims injuries and treatment, as it does in car crashes.

Stop it with the "but but but but cars!!!" We're not talking about cars. We're talking about bikes, and why riders should be required to carry insurance. And the above is exactly why they should be required to

I suppose everyone should have a dream.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

JFC, are you dense?

Insurance would've paid for the victims injuries and treatment, as it does in car crashes.

Stop it with the "but but but but cars!!!" We're not talking about cars. We're talking about bikes, and why riders should be required to carry insurance. And the above is exactly why they should be required to

Learn to read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It needs to happen a LOT more often that police officers pull someone over in retaliation, write the person a citation for not having complied with a county requirement intended to help recover stolen bicycles, and fail to show up to defend the citation in court? Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

JFC, are you dense?

Insurance would've paid for the victims injuries and treatment, as it does in car crashes.

Stop it with the "but but but but cars!!!" We're not talking about cars. We're talking about bikes, and why riders should be required to carry insurance. And the above is exactly why they should be required to

Learn to read.

This reply makes absolutely no sense.

Are you a bot? AI of some kind?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

JFC, are you dense?

Insurance would've paid for the victims injuries and treatment, as it does in car crashes.

Stop it with the "but but but but cars!!!" We're not talking about cars. We're talking about bikes, and why riders should be required to carry insurance. And the above is exactly why they should be required to

I bet you can't come up with even a handful of actual examples or citations of cyclists causing injuries or damage to cars or pedestrians.

And I bet you are a road rage riven suburban SUV driver who is a threat to everyone else on the road whenever you are behind the wheel.

But we should be worried about people who bike.

I drive an Accord wagon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

All cyclists? Such generalizations make you seem unreasonably hostile. Why are you so hostile?

Just the ones who don't comply with the laws.

So I guess that's *only* most of them. Not all.

So you are revising your bs statement? Why so hostile?

Hostility to criminals and scofflaws seems pretty understandable to me.

[Anonymous]

OP is a type. Hostile to anyone they deem worthy of their hostility -- even if the majority of people around them have NO ISSUE WHATSOEVER with the person or behavior. Hates -- HATES -- their neighbors for putting dog poop in their trash can on trash day, HATES scooters parked in a disorderly manner, HATES not bicycles but the people who ride them. Just HATES.

Scrooge, it's not too late for you to change for the better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

All cyclists? Such generalizations make you seem unreasonably hostile. Why are you so hostile?

Just the ones who don't comply with the laws.

So I guess that's *only* most of them. Not all.

So you are revising your bs statement? Why so hostile?

Hostility to criminals and scofflaws seems pretty understandable to me.

The PP is so very extreme - all cyclists, all laws, everything having to do with bikes. Vigilante in the making?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The PP is so very extreme - all cyclists, all laws, everything having to do with bikes. Vigilante in the making?

I hope not. I'm just trying to get from here to there in one piece.

-person who rides a bike to get from here to there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I think more people have been killed by hammers on DC streets than bicycles. So you're saying that all hammers should be registered and licensed?

You anti-bicycle people are really a stretch.