Hacker News Reader

I too, as a regular cyclist, would like to see more cyclists fined when they run red lights, cycle on footpaths, cycle in the wrong direction etc., but enforcement is also lacking for motorists who run red lights, speed, or drive while on the phone. A critical difference is that motorists ignoring traffic law put others at risk, whereas cyclists usually only endanger themselves, if at all.

I don't see how licensing, registering, mandatory insurance etc. will change anything, but make cycling less popular.

Per my understanding, road infrastructure is typically paid from general taxes (obviously depending on country). As cyclists require less road space, cause less road wear and have practically no environmental burden compared to motorists it's probably the case that we pay a disproportionately high percentage of infrastcuture costs.

This is incredible. Starting in reverse,

> And taxes and fees just like for motor vehicles, whether ICE vehicles or electric vehicles

Those taxes and fees are for road upkeep and resurfacing. The fourth power law [0] tells us that bicycles have (if we're being exceedingly generous) a negligible impact, even relative to the average Mazda Miata.

> licensing, registering, insuring framework for cyclists

We have gun licenses, hunting licenses, driving licenses, pilot's licenses, and more. Note that all of the above can and will kill you, or those around you, if practiced unsafely. Per the fine article above, "It's Never a Bicycle Accident" is an astute way of putting it. Shawn Bradley isn't paralyzed because he was cycling unsafely, but because someone else was driving unsafely.

The same point is made regarding insurance: mandatory insurance means if you're in an accident someone else causes, your car isn't totaled or in need of thousands of dollars worth of work that the at-fault party can't pay for. This isn't much of an issue with bicycles though: a car can easily cause thousands in medical bills, but a vehicle is driving away relatively unscathed from any interaction with a cyclist.

> Cyclists roll through signals, intersections & stop signs

We come to a full stop when driving to verify it's safe. If it's safe, there's no penalty for coming to a complete stop. If it's unsafe, we recognize that it takes time and distance to stop your 2-ton vehicle; as such, it's a good thing you were already stopped. Considering cyclists weigh approximately an order of magnitude less, they also take dramatically less time to stop.

Do note that with the above, we're even arguing to your point: the cyclists rolling through signage are simultaneously the worst offenders, and the ones most likely to have their lives altered because of it. While we can say the best drivers can kill someone, the worst cyclists aren't going to kill anyone but themselves.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AASHO_Road_Test

Yeah no that's just BS. Why is it always okay to judge all cyclists by the worst offenders, but drivers are only judged by their own personal actions? If that's the way the argument should go, the group of drivers are far, far, far worse than cyclists. How many are killed by a cyclist each year, compared to a driver? So yeah, arguing about the merits of the "groups" is just plain useless.

The taxes for a car aren't even close to offsetting their costs on society (infrastructure, external factors like pollution etc). I already pay for the infrastructure through taxes. And most cyclists (including me) also operate cars. So that's not really an argument. Making cycling cheaper is a also net win (health, environment,+++), so making cycling more expensive is a stupid idea. Actually, saying "cyclists should pay your fair share" would mean that cycling would end up cheaper than now, and cars even more expensive. So I'm all for it.

You are simply misinformed.

I pay for the infrastructure, it comes from income tax not registration. Yet look how little of my money goes to bicycle infrastructure anyway. Registration typically covers registration administration and sometimes third party insurance levys, different state to state but it almost never covers infrastructure. I also have two cars anyway, every cyclist I know owns a car.

Where I live, bicycle infractions are fineable and also demerit your car license. So no problem there but enforcement.

Of course cyclists can be in the wrong, but riders die when motorists are in the wrong, the stakes aren't the same. Saying cyclists are in the wrong doesn't suddenly make the mistakes equal. We could bicker about this point ad nauseum but motorists are the ones who chose to bring a lethal weapon into the community that day so it's their responsibility to make sure not to kill anyone.

Now this one is controversial and I am sure there are tonnes of selfish cyclists, but when I do anything marginally illegal it is in order to give drivers an easier time or make myself safe. I will pull onto the footpath in order to do a hook turn instead of sitting in the intersection for one example. Technically not illegal here either but motorists assume I am trying to cut ahead.

As a cyclist I sometimes run red lights if it is safe. Why? Bacause I cannot get from A to B with a bicycle with the current infrastructure.

In my city of 30k people there are several traffic lights equipped with road sensors. So they only ever go green if something heavy enough or with enough metal / magnetic mass in it rolls over it. Especially for left-turn signals it's impossible to get them triggered as a cyclist here.

One will remember waiting in the middle of the road for a few minutes. So I decided I'll come to a stop if needed and see that it's safe to run the red light. I'd even do it if police is seeing it.

This topic has also been raised to the city council and local administration but I guess my tax money will not be spent on cycle friendly infrastructure.

> You cant just hop on a bicycle use infrastructure others are paying for and expect to be treated like equals without paying into the system your fair share.

There are a few studies that show that cycling saves cost while driving cars is subsidized by the government. That's taking taxes, fees into acount. Even the heavy petrol taxes in Europe.

Probably it helps to keep that in mind if one is again annoyed by cyclists (read people) using the road.

I can already be fined as a cyclist for running a red light or riding on the pavement. I already pay tax that funds city infrastructure for roads, bike lanes and shared spaces. Why do I need a new, convoluted administrative burden introduced that does basically nothing other than encourage less people to ride a bike?

We don't have a walking license and sidewalk tax either, and humans do not need to walk around with identifying serial numbers visible from afar either. Licenses are often about mitigating safety risk more than what the average human body could do alone.

Cyclists roll through signals, intersections & stop signs as if they were mere suggestions and nothing more.

As do a lot of car drivers.

By the numbers, way more car drivers do.

Yes, there have been a number of studies that show that’s the case.