Hacker News Reader

Comment by slantyyz | Hacker News Reader

> “Bicycle riders on public roads have the same rights and responsibilities as motorists, and are subject to the same rules and regulations.”

Not wholly true. Cyclists aren't required by law to have insurance, a riding license or a license plate to even be on the road. Cyclists might get fined or punished for disobeying the law, but in most places, they can't be banned from getting on the road again like a car driver would.

View on HN

But the increased restrictions on operating a motor vehicle come from the assumption driving one is a privilege, to be earned upon demonstration of appropriate competence (incl. liability insurance). Likewise, the usual consequences of a abusing a motor vehicle far more disastrous than abusing a bike, prompting a greater required performance to avert such consequences.

I don't dispute the intent of increased regulation on motorists, but that original statement in itself is misleading, especially because it is stated often by bicycle advocates and then taken at face value.

I think the argument is that "when you are on the road, bicycles have near identical rights and responsibilities as cars".

It's not identical - bicycles aren't allowed on motorways in the UK, for instance.

Neither are under-powered motorcycles in the US. But where any vehicle is allowed, it's responsible.

Not all motor vehicles are required to carry insurance. In CA for example, Mopeds, Motorized bicycles, and certain classes of scooters do not require insurance and some only require a one time registration fee. Some also do not need to display a license plate. Off highway-on highway vehicles are also a special consideration.

In many places, including the whole of CA, you can get points or loose your license for violations on a cycle. DWI on a bicycle is equivelent to DWI in a Car for example. And I've even met someone it happened to. Not exactly something they like to brag about ;).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com