🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <D.Nash-1411941453460001@bubba.ots.utexas.edu>, D.Nash@utexas.edu (Donald L. Nash) writes:
> Someone who owns two cars pays registration fees on both of them, and they
> have two vehicles which they can use on public streets.  Someone who owns
> a car and a bike pays registration fees on only one of those vehicles, but
> they are still allowed to use both of them on public streets.

	Not entirely.  Bicycles are not allowed on Interstates (unless there
is no other suitable route, for example I-10 out in west Texas, or bridges).
Cars are allowed.  Bicycles are prohibited from riding on the roadway if there
is a suitable shoulder available.  Bicycles are prohibited from Tollways
as well.  So, no, bicycles do not have equal access to the public roadways
as cars do, i.e. the same rights as cars.

>                                                                Doesn't
> sound like an equal footing to me.  Yes, there are other taxes that go to
> road construction and repair, but all other things being equal, a person
> with a car and a bike pays less tax for two vehicles than someone with two
> cars.

	And how much would a comparative bicycle registration be?

	Based upon weight, the vehicle registration would be about $0.34 cents,
not even enough to cover the paperwork.

	Based upon the amount of wear and tear of the road surface, again
not even enough to cover the paperwork.

	How about cost of the bicycle?  Probably less than $2.00, more than the
$0.34, but still it makes it hard to cost justify the paperwork/tags/stickers.

	It costs you $7.50 to inspect your car.  Considering all the components
I don't have on my bicycle that you get inspected on my car, why should I have
to pay $7.50 for it?  How would that be fair?  After all, if we had all that
kind of stuff on our bikes, we'd need a small engine to power it all, which
would kindof defeat the purpose of a "bicycle"...

> I think changing the current laws would be sufficient to level the playing
> field.  What's the problem with making bikers live up to the same
> responsibilities as drivers if they're going to have the same rights?

	Then you will have to tell your children that they have to put up
their bicycle.  Since you have to be 16 years old to operate a vehicle,
many children will have to give up the bike.

	And how do you license that jogger that uses public streets upon
which to exersize (he's using the public streets, but not paying taxes on
the running shoes).  Should (s)he be required to get a running license
and get his shoes inspected annually?  How do you fairly price this?

	What you are not understanding is that the responsibilities for
safely operating a 3500lb motor vehicle at 55mph are much different that
for a 20lb unmotorized vehicle at 15mph when you consider factors of
personal and property damage you can inflict on others.

	This is part of the reason why truckers pay much more in road
taxes than you do.  Do you have less rights or less responsibilities
because you pay less than they do?  Motorcyclists and then even mopeds
pay less than you.  It goes down to a point where the overhead consumes
the benefit.

> The cops are already enforcing the traffic laws, and bikers are already
> responsible for obeying all the those laws.  Why does making bikers
> responsible for two or three more laws (vehicle registration, operator
> licensing, and maybe vehicle inspection) suddenly cause a massive increase
> in the required number of law enforcement personnel, especially when these
> three laws are typically only enforced when a traffic law is violated?

	Because to do it fairly (based upon restrictions in use of roadways,
reduction in wear/tear, age of cyclists [especially children], reduced
complexity of the vehicle [I have no horn, windshield wipers, turn signals,
exhaust system, polluting emmissions, etc], consideration during roadway
planning [always an afterthought, if at all]) would actually be more
unfair and costly.

	However, many bike shops are willing to inspect your bike for
free, and some bike events (especially triathlons) require some sort
of bike inspection.

	Many bike shops encourage getting involved with a bike club to
help newer cyclists ride better and safer.

	And some cities have thought about legislation to require cyclists
to wear helmets (much as do motorcyclists, now).  Not a bad idea, at *least*
for underage children.

>                                             ... and I wish there was some
> way they could use the roads without getting in the way of cars.

	Alternative lane striping (as I've mentioned before) can be a
benefit here with little, if any, additional funding.

>                                                                  It is
> also my opinion that if bikers are going to share the same roads as
> motorists, then they should live up to the same set of responsibilities,
> which they currently don't do.

	But we can't share the same roads as you, and legally, we have to
move out of your way unless unsafe to do so.  If cyclists have to get
licensed and registered and everything, then we should be allowed to use
all roads, ride in the middle of the lane, even if it gets in your way.
After all, we'd then be living by the same responsibilities as you, and 
should have the same rights.  We'd just be considered a "slow moving vehicle".

	We do have rights on the road, but we do not have all the same
rights, or always equal rights.  I think the current system is fair, but
many operators of both types of vehicles need more education.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		              |Inet: davidc@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts            |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260776                      |Fone: (214)-578-5036
Plano TX  75026-0772                  |http://www.montagar.com/~davidc/