Are bicycles vehicles?
07-11-06, 06:04 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Are bicycles vehicles?
Are bicycles vehicles? Or are bicycles something else-- something in between a vehicle and a pedestrian?
(Motor) Vehicles are required to be registered and insured, to pay taxes for road maintenance, and operators are required to be licensed. None of these requirements are applicable to bicycles. And while bicycles are subject to the traffic regulations, they are also permitted on sidewalks with pedestrians, while (motor) vehicles are not.
And while bicyclists often claim that bicycles are vehicles, and therefore have all of the rights that operators of other vehicles enjoy, they also often attempt to evade the responsibilities-- observance of traffic regulations, for example-- that are incumbent upon operators of other vehicles. Some cyclists want to have their cake and eat it too-- bicycles are vehicles when it gives them certain rights, but bicycles are not vehicles when it imposes certain responsibilities on them.
So what are bicycles-- Vehicles? A special class of vehicles? Or neither vehicle nor pedestrian?
And what are the implications of that classification? For example....
1) Should bicycles be subject to all of the traffic regulations that other vehicles are subject to? Or should some of the traffic regulations be adapted to meet the needs of bicycles? What is the rationale?
2) Should bicycles continue to use a combination of roads, bike lanes, and sidewalks, as they do now? Or should bicycle-specific facilities-- as see in some European cities-- be developed to separate bicycles from both motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic? What is the rationale?
[ATTN VC Evangelists: I realize this question brings VC into the mix, and that's OK, but PLEASE respect the topic of this thread-- it's not about VC, it's asking a number of questions-- and PLEASE don't hijack this thread for VC evangelism. Make your point, one post should be more than enough to do it, but don't hijack. Fair enough? Thanks!]
3) Should bicycles be taxed to pay for the roads they use? Or should they be exempt from taxes, as they are now? What is the rationale?
4) Should bicycles be registered and cyclists licensed, as motor vehicles and their operators are? Or should they continue to be unregulated, as they are now? What is the rationale?
5) Should bicycles be insured, as motor vehicles are? Or should they be uninsured, as they are now? What is the rationale?
(Motor) Vehicles are required to be registered and insured, to pay taxes for road maintenance, and operators are required to be licensed. None of these requirements are applicable to bicycles. And while bicycles are subject to the traffic regulations, they are also permitted on sidewalks with pedestrians, while (motor) vehicles are not.
And while bicyclists often claim that bicycles are vehicles, and therefore have all of the rights that operators of other vehicles enjoy, they also often attempt to evade the responsibilities-- observance of traffic regulations, for example-- that are incumbent upon operators of other vehicles. Some cyclists want to have their cake and eat it too-- bicycles are vehicles when it gives them certain rights, but bicycles are not vehicles when it imposes certain responsibilities on them.
So what are bicycles-- Vehicles? A special class of vehicles? Or neither vehicle nor pedestrian?
And what are the implications of that classification? For example....
1) Should bicycles be subject to all of the traffic regulations that other vehicles are subject to? Or should some of the traffic regulations be adapted to meet the needs of bicycles? What is the rationale?
2) Should bicycles continue to use a combination of roads, bike lanes, and sidewalks, as they do now? Or should bicycle-specific facilities-- as see in some European cities-- be developed to separate bicycles from both motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic? What is the rationale?
[ATTN VC Evangelists: I realize this question brings VC into the mix, and that's OK, but PLEASE respect the topic of this thread-- it's not about VC, it's asking a number of questions-- and PLEASE don't hijack this thread for VC evangelism. Make your point, one post should be more than enough to do it, but don't hijack. Fair enough? Thanks!]
3) Should bicycles be taxed to pay for the roads they use? Or should they be exempt from taxes, as they are now? What is the rationale?
4) Should bicycles be registered and cyclists licensed, as motor vehicles and their operators are? Or should they continue to be unregulated, as they are now? What is the rationale?
5) Should bicycles be insured, as motor vehicles are? Or should they be uninsured, as they are now? What is the rationale?
Last edited by Blue Order; 07-11-06 at 06:20 PM.
07-11-06, 06:16 PM
#2
GATC
A lawyer told me that when a car rear-ended me on my bike while I was in the bike lane I was a pedestrian in the view of WA law. Don't know what I would have been in the regular traffic lane.
07-11-06, 06:27 PM
#3
Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
1) I'd like to see all the traffic regulations enforced properly, but I suspect I would say the second thing. The vast majority of traffic laws are car-centered (actually many are revenue-centered). But whatever happens, laws that apply to everything on the road should be applied equally to everything on the road.
2) No idea here. Bike-specific pathways would be nice, but they would need to be made to accomodate all types of bikes and riders. Imagine having to design a road for Model T's, Escalades, Civics and F1 cars. That's probably cost-prohibitive, so I'll say share the roads.
3) Considering that cars are on the roads, bikes essentially don't damage them. Right now, bikes are almost never considered when designing and building roads. "No taxation without representation!" Or something like that.
4) "Not licensesd" is not "unregulated". Driving a bike on the road is still entails lots of laws and regulations. There are lots of laws in every state that govern cycling on roads, and how other vehicles need to interact with them. Enforce those first, then if that doesn't work to make cycling safer, we can talk about classes, licenses and registration.
5) Insurance should be available, both for damage to the bike and rider, and for liability. I don't think that cyclists cause enough damage that it's necessary to spread the costs to all cyclists by requiring the purchase of liability insurance. But you should be able to protect yourself. I'm not even saying that insurance companies should be mandated to provide it, I'm more surprised that it's not more popular. Theft insurance is a little more difficult. It's very hard to predict the cost of insurance when the theft rate is high, but the cost (compared to a car) is relatively low.
2) No idea here. Bike-specific pathways would be nice, but they would need to be made to accomodate all types of bikes and riders. Imagine having to design a road for Model T's, Escalades, Civics and F1 cars. That's probably cost-prohibitive, so I'll say share the roads.
3) Considering that cars are on the roads, bikes essentially don't damage them. Right now, bikes are almost never considered when designing and building roads. "No taxation without representation!" Or something like that.
4) "Not licensesd" is not "unregulated". Driving a bike on the road is still entails lots of laws and regulations. There are lots of laws in every state that govern cycling on roads, and how other vehicles need to interact with them. Enforce those first, then if that doesn't work to make cycling safer, we can talk about classes, licenses and registration.
5) Insurance should be available, both for damage to the bike and rider, and for liability. I don't think that cyclists cause enough damage that it's necessary to spread the costs to all cyclists by requiring the purchase of liability insurance. But you should be able to protect yourself. I'm not even saying that insurance companies should be mandated to provide it, I'm more surprised that it's not more popular. Theft insurance is a little more difficult. It's very hard to predict the cost of insurance when the theft rate is high, but the cost (compared to a car) is relatively low.
07-11-06, 06:41 PM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Beaufort, South Carolina, USA and surrounding islands.
Posts: 8,521
Bikes: Cannondale R500, Motobecane Messenger
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Wrong. Motor vehicles with more then 5 hp must be registered, insured, and operated by a liscensed driver. The definition of a bicycle is expicitly worded in Article 27 of the South Carolina Penal Code, 1976 revision, as having the rights, privledges, and responsibilities of a motor vehicle with the following exceptions:
The exceptions are about every logical exceptions that could apply to a bicycle.
The exceptions are about every logical exceptions that could apply to a bicycle.
07-11-06, 06:52 PM
#5
Faster but still slow
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jersey
Posts: 5,978
Bikes: Trek 830 circa 1993 and a Fuji WSD Finest 1.0 2006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Not all motor vehicles need to be insured or registered. Farm machinery and pick-up trucks used for farming are some examples. I think it is just fine that bikes have most of the same rights and responsibilities as cars, but don't need to be registered.
07-11-06, 06:52 PM
#6
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I think bicycles are a special class of vehicle-- they're obviously not a motor vehicle, but they're also clearly something more than a pedestrian. As such, I believe that...
1) A rational argument can be made that while bicycles are vehicles and therefore subject to the rules of the road, bicycles should receive favorable treatment-- much as low-emission vehicles do on highways-- with some traffic regulations. For example, the law could be changed to allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs. However, I believe bicyclists should observe the existing traffic laws until they are changed.
2) My preference would be for bicycle-specific facilities that separate bicycles from vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and where such facilities are not available, for bicycles to continue to use a combination of roads, bike lanes, and sidewalks, as they do now.
3) I believe that bicyclists should they be exempt from taxes, as they are now, because bicycles do not place wear and tear on the roads. Furthermore, because bicycles do not place wear and tear on the roads, and because they do not impact air quality, keeping them tax-free would be a recognition that bicycles are low-impact, and therefore a favored means of transport.
4) I believe that motor vehicles are inherently more dangerous, and therefore, have registration and licensing requirements that reflect the danger they pose. Bicycles are inherently less dangerous, and therefore, I see no need to require registration and licensing. However... One argument for registration would be that it could potentially cut down bike theft, because in order to sell a bike, you'd need to have title to it. As far as licensing, I think it's not necessary, but where a cyclist receives a traffic citation, there should be an option, or maybe even a requirement, to attend a bicycle safety class.
5) I believe that at a minimum, comprehensive insurance should be available to cyclists. I think good arguments can be made both for and against mandatory insurance. Perhaps if insurance is made optional, rather than mandatory, jail sentences should apply where a cyclist causes damage or injury and is uninsured and unable to pay for the damages. The bottom line for me is that cyclists should at least have the option of insuring themselves.
1) A rational argument can be made that while bicycles are vehicles and therefore subject to the rules of the road, bicycles should receive favorable treatment-- much as low-emission vehicles do on highways-- with some traffic regulations. For example, the law could be changed to allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs. However, I believe bicyclists should observe the existing traffic laws until they are changed.
2) My preference would be for bicycle-specific facilities that separate bicycles from vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and where such facilities are not available, for bicycles to continue to use a combination of roads, bike lanes, and sidewalks, as they do now.
3) I believe that bicyclists should they be exempt from taxes, as they are now, because bicycles do not place wear and tear on the roads. Furthermore, because bicycles do not place wear and tear on the roads, and because they do not impact air quality, keeping them tax-free would be a recognition that bicycles are low-impact, and therefore a favored means of transport.
4) I believe that motor vehicles are inherently more dangerous, and therefore, have registration and licensing requirements that reflect the danger they pose. Bicycles are inherently less dangerous, and therefore, I see no need to require registration and licensing. However... One argument for registration would be that it could potentially cut down bike theft, because in order to sell a bike, you'd need to have title to it. As far as licensing, I think it's not necessary, but where a cyclist receives a traffic citation, there should be an option, or maybe even a requirement, to attend a bicycle safety class.
5) I believe that at a minimum, comprehensive insurance should be available to cyclists. I think good arguments can be made both for and against mandatory insurance. Perhaps if insurance is made optional, rather than mandatory, jail sentences should apply where a cyclist causes damage or injury and is uninsured and unable to pay for the damages. The bottom line for me is that cyclists should at least have the option of insuring themselves.
07-11-06, 07:24 PM
#7
hill hater
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: norton ohio 5.5 miles from center road tow path trail head
Posts: 2,127
Bikes: cannondale t400 1987 model and a raleigh gran prix from 1973
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Bikes by law are vehicals here in ohio at least. This means we have to by law ride acordingly. As in no red light running except in the case a signal is malfuntioning as in wont change to green. In this case just like cars and others you can treet said signal as a stop sign.
We are not required to act as a vehical however. In other words we can perform a pedestrian turn or ride at low speeds on sidewalks.
I would say depending entirly on where you ride your a vehical a hybrid between ped and vehical or a pedestrian.
As for the insurnce thing id be fine with non required insurance and might at some point get it my self. Would be nice to know that if some jackass in a car trashes my bike im covered regardless of his insurance companies response.
We are not required to act as a vehical however. In other words we can perform a pedestrian turn or ride at low speeds on sidewalks.
I would say depending entirly on where you ride your a vehical a hybrid between ped and vehical or a pedestrian.
As for the insurnce thing id be fine with non required insurance and might at some point get it my self. Would be nice to know that if some jackass in a car trashes my bike im covered regardless of his insurance companies response.
07-11-06, 07:32 PM
#8
Ultra-clydesdale
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sacramento, CA or St Paul, MN
Posts: 572
Bikes: Titus Racer-X AL/Trek 520(RIP)/Trek 930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
As someone mentioned, a motorcycle (proibably a scooter) under a certain HP or displacement (generally 5 HP or 50cc) is free from nearly all taxes (some states they might need plates, and are treated as vehicles everywhere but the freeway. Sounds familiar and no one disputes that these are vehicles.
07-11-06, 08:02 PM
#9
♋ ☮♂ ☭ ☯
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 40205 'ViLLeBiLLie
Posts: 7,902
Bikes: Sngl Spd's, 70's- 80's vintage, D-tube Folder
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Some cyclists want to have their cake and eat it too-- bicycles are vehicles
when it gives them certain rights, but bicycles are not vehicles when it imposes certain
responsibilities on them.
Im not one of them. I dont expect or want any rights that have to be legislated. I live simply
by one rule that should be universal...respect. I will always stay out of your way and all I
ask in return is that you dont try to kill me.
So what are bicycles-- Vehicles? A special class of vehicles?
Or neither vehicle nor pedestrian?
I prefer "conveyance'.....Is a skateboard a vehicle ? A unicycle ? Do you become a vehicle
if you strap on Rollerblades ??
1) Should bicycles be subject to all of the traffic regulations that other
vehicles are subject to? Or should some of the traffic regulations be adapted to meet the
needs of bicycles? What is the rationale?
Traffic regulations should be adapted to alternative transportaion.
Why should a bicycle have to stop in the line of a traffic jam ?
Practicing a higher level of social and environmental concsiousness at a time when
it is needed most should be encouraged, not punished by useless, unknowledgable authoritarian
entities.
2) Should bicycles continue to use a combination of roads, bike lanes,
and sidewalks, as they do now? Or should bicycle-specific facilities-- as see in some European
cities-- be developed to separate bicycles from both motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic?
What is the rationale?
Yes, whenever possible. Alternative trans should be promoted. More people would
utilitarian cycle if they think they werent in constant danger. After a recent exchnge with
some car drivers and road bike riders on our local papers BBS board two themes re-occured....
People thinking is insane to ride with cars and people angry at club roadies who take up
a whole lane and wont yeild. Seperating bicycles would alleviate these issues to some degree.
3) Should bicycles be taxed to pay for the roads they use? Or should they
be exempt from taxes, as they are now? What is the rationale?
NO!!!!!!!! Realisticly, most bike riders have cars too. If anything, we deserve a rebate.
we pay taxes for our cars already but use them much less thereby not contributing to the
things cars are taxed for.
4) Should bicycles be registered and cyclists licensed, as motor vehicles
and their operators are? Or should they continue to be unregulated, as they are now?
What is the rationale?
NO, NO, NO !!!!
No more government interference !!! What possible good could come of this? I truly
believe it would be the death knell for non-competative cycling. Any chance of it ever
gain popularity would die at the writ of some useless, bloated political agencies meddling.
5) Should bicycles be insured, as motor vehicles are? Or should they be
uninsured, as they are now? What is the rationale?
NO !! NO !! No !!!
See above !!!!
The government is never at a loss for squeezing money from people but some 'issues'
(even though this is not an issue to me) cant be solved by tithing money to a corporation
for a problem that doesnt exist.
Who is going to buy a bike knowing you have to buy insurance on it ?? Maybe 1/5th of the
people who do now ?
I personally would never pay for insurance or registration type stuff and I cannot see
police wanting to enforce something this ridiculous.
.............
when it gives them certain rights, but bicycles are not vehicles when it imposes certain
responsibilities on them.
Im not one of them. I dont expect or want any rights that have to be legislated. I live simply
by one rule that should be universal...respect. I will always stay out of your way and all I
ask in return is that you dont try to kill me.
So what are bicycles-- Vehicles? A special class of vehicles?
Or neither vehicle nor pedestrian?
I prefer "conveyance'.....Is a skateboard a vehicle ? A unicycle ? Do you become a vehicle
if you strap on Rollerblades ??
1) Should bicycles be subject to all of the traffic regulations that other
vehicles are subject to? Or should some of the traffic regulations be adapted to meet the
needs of bicycles? What is the rationale?
Traffic regulations should be adapted to alternative transportaion.
Why should a bicycle have to stop in the line of a traffic jam ?
Practicing a higher level of social and environmental concsiousness at a time when
it is needed most should be encouraged, not punished by useless, unknowledgable authoritarian
entities.
2) Should bicycles continue to use a combination of roads, bike lanes,
and sidewalks, as they do now? Or should bicycle-specific facilities-- as see in some European
cities-- be developed to separate bicycles from both motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic?
What is the rationale?
Yes, whenever possible. Alternative trans should be promoted. More people would
utilitarian cycle if they think they werent in constant danger. After a recent exchnge with
some car drivers and road bike riders on our local papers BBS board two themes re-occured....
People thinking is insane to ride with cars and people angry at club roadies who take up
a whole lane and wont yeild. Seperating bicycles would alleviate these issues to some degree.
3) Should bicycles be taxed to pay for the roads they use? Or should they
be exempt from taxes, as they are now? What is the rationale?
NO!!!!!!!! Realisticly, most bike riders have cars too. If anything, we deserve a rebate.
we pay taxes for our cars already but use them much less thereby not contributing to the
things cars are taxed for.
4) Should bicycles be registered and cyclists licensed, as motor vehicles
and their operators are? Or should they continue to be unregulated, as they are now?
What is the rationale?
NO, NO, NO !!!!
No more government interference !!! What possible good could come of this? I truly
believe it would be the death knell for non-competative cycling. Any chance of it ever
gain popularity would die at the writ of some useless, bloated political agencies meddling.
5) Should bicycles be insured, as motor vehicles are? Or should they be
uninsured, as they are now? What is the rationale?
NO !! NO !! No !!!
See above !!!!
The government is never at a loss for squeezing money from people but some 'issues'
(even though this is not an issue to me) cant be solved by tithing money to a corporation
for a problem that doesnt exist.
Who is going to buy a bike knowing you have to buy insurance on it ?? Maybe 1/5th of the
people who do now ?
I personally would never pay for insurance or registration type stuff and I cannot see
police wanting to enforce something this ridiculous.
.............
☞
07-11-06, 08:23 PM
#10
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Western Maryland
Posts: 23
Bikes: Sun EZ-3 Recumbent Trike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Blue Order
3) Should bicycles be taxed to pay for the roads they use? Or should they be exempt from taxes, as they are now? What is the rationale?
The gasoline taxes (motor vehicle fuel excise tax) you hear so much about are "highway taxes" collected to build and maintain the highways (mostly the interstates). That same pot of money is also used to pay for mass transit projects, and whatever pork the politician needs to buy your vote.
In Maryland, bicyclists are permitted on all roads with posted speed limits of 50 mph or less, so the roads I ride aren't funded with highway taxes.
To answer your question: No, because bicyclists are already taxed.
07-11-06, 08:42 PM
#11
LeMond Lives!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Edina, MN
Posts: 560
Bikes: In 1963 my sister taught me to ride on her girl’s frame (no wonder I shave my legs) Schwinn it was blue and it weighted a billion pounds. – Gone, 2nd bike - a Schwinn Colligate (Gold) 5 speed – Traded in, 3rd bike – 1971 Schwinn Continental (Maro
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Do the diligence on the topic before you post would be nice.
Vehicle is defined as -
1 any device or contrivance for carrying or conveying persons or objects, esp. over land or in space, as an automobile, bicycle, sled, or spacecraft
2 a means by which thoughts are expressed or made known !music as the vehicle for one's ideas"
3 in a metaphor, that word or term whose usual, literal meaning is applied in a figurative, nonliteral way to the TENOR (sense 3) !in “all the world's a stage”, “world” is the tenor and “stage” is the vehicle"
4 a play, film, etc. thought of as a means of communication or as a means of presenting a specified actor or company
5 Painting a liquid, as water or oil, with which pigments are mixed for use
6 Pharmacy a substance, as a syrup, in which medicines are given
Bike are vehicles.... slam dunk...no question.. All states recognize bikes as Vehicles
What part of vehicle law don’t you understand? All vehicles have to obey vehicle laws. When on the roadway.
It really would be nice if you only ask one question at time….
First answer is Yes.
Second Yes if the conditions warrant the facility.
Third Read AASHTO, UK, and most state guidelines and modal plans and you will know.
One they are just as cars are. Gas tax does not even come close to covering the cost or roads.
Two sales tax you pay on the bike, parts and your income tax and property tax are being used for roads. Do you pay any Tax on your car each year…nope. You most likely pay for tabs or license but ask your state what that goes to? Most of money spent on roads is from general funds.
Three call your congressman and Senator.
Cars are registered for police and insurance tracking purposes. What would it hurt if bikes were too…but think of the how much time it would take to tack them the cost to the government would almost be more than the cost of the bike.
Don’t confuse the terms registered and Regulated. Bike are regulated now. Registration is by state choice.
Rationale? …. Not enough space here.
Define insured! From theft, vandalism, driving it into a wall...is your choice just as it is with a car.
If you are asking about insurance to cover if you injure someone or damage property while riding. Most homeowners policies cover that now. So if you have it you are covered. If you don’t you should or have the cash in the bank to pay the damages.
Rationale…….. common sense…if you are part of a community you have to hold up your part and be responsible.
Too much for one thread. Interesting topic. But too much for one thread.
Cheers,
Dusk
Originally Posted by Blue Order
Are bicycles vehicles? Or are bicycles something else-- something in between a vehicle and a pedestrian?
(Motor) Vehicles are required to be registered and insured, to pay taxes for road maintenance, and operators are required to be licensed. None of these requirements are applicable to bicycles. And while bicycles are subject to the traffic regulations, they are also permitted on sidewalks with pedestrians, while (motor) vehicles are not.
And while bicyclists often claim that bicycles are vehicles, and therefore have all of the rights that operators of other vehicles enjoy, they also often attempt to evade the responsibilities-- observance of traffic regulations, for example-- that are incumbent upon operators of other vehicles. Some cyclists want to have their cake and eat it too-- bicycles are vehicles when it gives them certain rights, but bicycles are not vehicles when it imposes certain responsibilities on them.
So what are bicycles-- Vehicles? A special class of vehicles? Or neither vehicle nor pedestrian?
(Motor) Vehicles are required to be registered and insured, to pay taxes for road maintenance, and operators are required to be licensed. None of these requirements are applicable to bicycles. And while bicycles are subject to the traffic regulations, they are also permitted on sidewalks with pedestrians, while (motor) vehicles are not.
And while bicyclists often claim that bicycles are vehicles, and therefore have all of the rights that operators of other vehicles enjoy, they also often attempt to evade the responsibilities-- observance of traffic regulations, for example-- that are incumbent upon operators of other vehicles. Some cyclists want to have their cake and eat it too-- bicycles are vehicles when it gives them certain rights, but bicycles are not vehicles when it imposes certain responsibilities on them.
So what are bicycles-- Vehicles? A special class of vehicles? Or neither vehicle nor pedestrian?
1 any device or contrivance for carrying or conveying persons or objects, esp. over land or in space, as an automobile, bicycle, sled, or spacecraft
2 a means by which thoughts are expressed or made known !music as the vehicle for one's ideas"
3 in a metaphor, that word or term whose usual, literal meaning is applied in a figurative, nonliteral way to the TENOR (sense 3) !in “all the world's a stage”, “world” is the tenor and “stage” is the vehicle"
4 a play, film, etc. thought of as a means of communication or as a means of presenting a specified actor or company
5 Painting a liquid, as water or oil, with which pigments are mixed for use
6 Pharmacy a substance, as a syrup, in which medicines are given
Bike are vehicles.... slam dunk...no question.. All states recognize bikes as Vehicles
Originally Posted by Blue Order
And what are the implications of that classification? For example....
1) Should bicycles be subject to all of the traffic regulations that other vehicles are subject to? Or should some of the traffic regulations be adapted to meet the needs of bicycles? What is the rationale?
1) Should bicycles be subject to all of the traffic regulations that other vehicles are subject to? Or should some of the traffic regulations be adapted to meet the needs of bicycles? What is the rationale?
Originally Posted by Blue Order
2) Should bicycles continue to use a combination of roads, bike lanes, and sidewalks, as they do now? Or should bicycle-specific facilities-- as see in some European cities-- be developed to separate bicycles from both motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic? What is the rationale?
First answer is Yes.
Second Yes if the conditions warrant the facility.
Third Read AASHTO, UK, and most state guidelines and modal plans and you will know.
Originally Posted by Blue Order
[ATTN VC Evangelists: I realize this question brings VC into the mix, and that's OK, but PLEASE respect the topic of this thread-- it's not about VC, it's asking a number of questions-- and PLEASE don't hijack this thread for VC evangelism. Make your point, one post should be more than enough to do it, but don't hijack. Fair enough? Thanks!]
Originally Posted by Blue Order
3) Should bicycles be taxed to pay for the roads they use? Or should they be exempt from taxes, as they are now? What is the rationale?
Two sales tax you pay on the bike, parts and your income tax and property tax are being used for roads. Do you pay any Tax on your car each year…nope. You most likely pay for tabs or license but ask your state what that goes to? Most of money spent on roads is from general funds.
Three call your congressman and Senator.
Originally Posted by Blue Order
4) Should bicycles be registered and cyclists licensed, as motor vehicles and their operators are? Or should they continue to be unregulated, as they are now? What is the rationale?
Don’t confuse the terms registered and Regulated. Bike are regulated now. Registration is by state choice.
Rationale? …. Not enough space here.
Originally Posted by Blue Order
5) Should bicycles be insured, as motor vehicles are? Or should they be uninsured, as they are now? What is the rationale?
If you are asking about insurance to cover if you injure someone or damage property while riding. Most homeowners policies cover that now. So if you have it you are covered. If you don’t you should or have the cash in the bank to pay the damages.
Rationale…….. common sense…if you are part of a community you have to hold up your part and be responsible.
Too much for one thread. Interesting topic. But too much for one thread.
Cheers,
Dusk
07-11-06, 08:52 PM
#12
Wheee
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: S. FL
Posts: 378
Bikes: Schwinn Rocket 88 phase 1/ Surly 1x1/Cannondale R700 WSD 650c
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
ya gotta point there
__________________
If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.
https://www.myspace.com/qwtrailbuilders
rip sydney
If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.
https://www.myspace.com/qwtrailbuilders
rip sydney
07-11-06, 09:25 PM
#14
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,995
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,545 Times
in
1,051 Posts
Originally Posted by Blue Order
Perhaps if insurance is made optional, rather than mandatory, jail sentences should apply where a cyclist causes damage or injury and is uninsured and unable to pay for the damages.
07-11-06, 10:07 PM
#15
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
I believe you have your lycra in a bunch over your own imagined nightmare. Your proposal is a draconian solution for a non-existant problem.
And this woman's injuries are an actually-existing problem. Now maybe the cyclist who hit her wasn't at fault, so there's no requirement for him to pay for her injuries. Or maybe the cyclist who hit her is covered by his auto policy, so there's no problem. But several people have suggested that requiring cyclists to carry insurance would force poor people off their bikes. So if somebody who can't afford insurance injures somebody, is that just the breaks for the injured person? Should we therefore allow people like me, who can't afford auto insurance, to drive uninsured? Especially considering that I've *never* injured somebody else, the "potential" for me to injure somebody else is also a "non-existent problem."
Oh, and I can't afford lycra either. Or tires. Or a helmet. Or a lock.
07-11-06, 10:15 PM
#16
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,995
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,545 Times
in
1,051 Posts
Originally Posted by Blue Order
My own nightmare-- real, not imagined-- is that I don't have health insurance, and won't have health insurance anytime soon. So if I get hit by a car, I'm going to have to hope that the driver has insurance to pay my expenses.
Originally Posted by Blue Order
Oh, and I can't afford lycra either. Or tires. Or a helmet. Or a lock.
07-11-06, 10:24 PM
#17
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Uh yeah, that explains why you propose mandatory insurance or jail sentences for all other cyclists. Maybe that makes real good sense to the members of your good idea club.
I suggested that perhaps one way to allow people to choose not to be insured would be to impose jail sentences for those situations where a cyclist is negligent and uninsured and incapable of paying the other person's damages.
But you think it's a bad idea to jail people, so I'll listen to other ideas. What do you propose should be done in those situations where a bicyclist injures somebody and is uninsured and unable to pay for the other person's injuries?
Sounds like you should be mandated to get them anyhow or go straight to jail.
07-11-06, 10:33 PM
#18
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,995
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,545 Times
in
1,051 Posts
Originally Posted by Blue Order
What do you propose should be done in those situations where a bicyclist injures somebody and is uninsured and unable to pay for the other person's injuries?
And wake up from your current nightmare.
07-11-06, 10:36 PM
#19
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
I propose you think up solutions for problems that actually exist somewhere besides your fevered imagination.
And wake up from your current nightmare.
And wake up from your current nightmare.
07-11-06, 10:39 PM
#20
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,995
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,545 Times
in
1,051 Posts
Originally Posted by Blue Order
So if I'm imagining it, and it never happens, then passing a draconian law would have absolutely NO impact on any cyclist ever, and therefore, there's no reason to oppose the law.
07-11-06, 10:50 PM
#21
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Just imagine there is a mandatory law in place that makes you happy and the issue is resolved. What's your next big solution in search of a problem?
I know, it's all imaginary. Until the day some guy on a bike comes speeding around a blind corner, knocks you onto the pavement where you split your head open-- or if you're lucky, you just need back surgery, like the woman who was hit by that real, not imagined, bicyclist.
So you get knocked down, and injured, and one day, after you've recovered a bit, you come to me, the town attorney, to see about getting the guy to pay your medical bills and lost wages. So I look into it, and I discover the guy has no insurance, because he can't afford a car. In fact, he's so poor he can't even afford lycra, even though everybody knows that all REAL cyclists wear lycra. So I tell you there's nothing I can do for you, because he doesn't have insurance, and he doesn't own anything for me to take. You ask me to sue him anyway, just to teach him a lesson, and I remind you that my fee is $200 per hour, and that I'll be needing that upfront. So you walk away, because you can't afford to pay $200 per hour when there's no recovery at the end, and you get stuck with the medical bills and lost wages, all because some guy with no insurance and no assets didn't care about things like negligence.
Yeah, but that never happens in the real world, does it? It's all just in my fevered imagination. Uh huh.
07-11-06, 10:59 PM
#22
bragi
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: seattle, WA
Posts: 2,911
Bikes: LHT
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
This is an interesting thread. I especially like the point that most bicyclists are already paying, through other taxes, to fund roadways, so an additional tax on bicyles would seem to be double-dipping, especially considering the minimal impact that bikes have on roads. (BTW, I think gas taxes are entirely justified; I even thought so when I still had a car. Cars are heavily subsidized by the rest of society, and it's only right that drivers pay at least some of the huge costs of maintaning that infrastructure, since they're the major beneficiary. It's not like most roads are built with bikes in mind.) And, as far as I know, every state in the US recognizes bicycles as vehicles, with all the legal rights and responsibilities thereof. In view of our rights and responsibilities, cyclists should always obey all traffic laws, even the irritating one that involves coming to a complete stop at stop signs, and if a motorist tells you to get off the road, you can tell him to f*** off with full confidence that the law is on your side, as long as you're not on the freeway. As far as registration is concerned, why bother? It costs the state too much, and, personally, two of the many things I find attractive about bicycles is that they're very inexpensive and only as regulated as necessary, and I'd hate to mess that up. So that's MY $.02.
07-12-06, 06:47 AM
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Blue Order
My own nightmare-- real, not imagined-- is that I don't have health insurance, and won't have health insurance anytime soon. So if I get hit by a car, I'm going to have to hope that the driver has insurance to pay my expenses.
And this woman's injuries ... So if somebody who can't afford insurance injures somebody, is that just the breaks for the injured person?...
Oh, and I can't afford lycra either. Or tires. Or a helmet. Or a lock.
And this woman's injuries ... So if somebody who can't afford insurance injures somebody, is that just the breaks for the injured person?...
Oh, and I can't afford lycra either. Or tires. Or a helmet. Or a lock.
07-12-06, 08:04 AM
#24
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,995
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,545 Times
in
1,051 Posts
Originally Posted by FLBandit
That's pretty much real life. If a car driver has no insurance and, injures you, you can sue them. However, if they are poor and have nothing you're SOL. It's just part of life.
07-12-06, 02:38 PM
#25
Dominatrikes
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Still in Santa Barbara
Posts: 4,920
Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Blue Order
1) a) Should bicycles be subject to all of the traffic regulations that other vehicles are subject to? b) Or should some of the traffic regulations be adapted to meet the needs of bicycles? c) What is the rationale?
b) They already are.
c) I don't know, but I suppose most of the rationale has to do with safety--how much damage a motor vehicle can cause and how much danger you can get into being on a bike
Originally Posted by Blue Order
2) a) Should bicycles continue to use a combination of roads, bike lanes, and sidewalks, as they do now? b) Or should bicycle-specific facilities-- as see in some European cities-- be developed to separate bicycles from both motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic? c) What is the rationale?
b) Yes.
c) Why not have more choices?
Originally Posted by Blue Order
3) a) Should bicycles be taxed to pay for the roads they use? b) Or should they be exempt from taxes, as they are now? c) What is the rationale?
b) Yes, and they should also receive tax credits.
c) Bicycling should be encouraged through incentives because bicycling benefits the public good. It creates a healthier populace (exercise to combat the obesity epidemic), helps with traffic congestion, and pollution, and the use/dependence on oil (foreign or domestic). All of these can save money for everyone in the long run.
Originally Posted by Blue Order
4) a) Should bicycles be registered and cyclists licensed, as motor vehicles and their operators are? b) Or should they continue to be unregulated, as they are now? c) What is the rationale?
b) Yes.
c) See #c in all the questions above. Also, bikes are a primary mode of transportation for children. Do we really want to subject children to all of this?
Originally Posted by Blue Order
5) a) Should bicycles be insured, as motor vehicles are? b) Or should they be uninsured, as they are now? c) What is the rationale?
b) You can already be insured if you want it.
c) You can already buy insurance to protect you from loss (renter's or homeowner's insurance), from medical bills (health insurance), for the cost of death (life insurance), and other types of insurance.