Bicycle Registration

Greetings to all readers.

I am currently compiling a paper regarding the registration of bicycles for use on our roads. Now at
the risk of being called a troll, and evoking emotional and abusive replies, I would like to ask you
all a few questions to gauge your reactions to the following questions.

I would appreciate single yes/no answers as opposed to emotive scripts or long discussions. Thank
you for your participation in advance.

http://www.geocities.com/andrewhooker59/CycleTouring.html Please remove the REMOVE_THIS_TO_REPLY in
our address to reply direct.
--
NOTES
1. The term bicycle here is a generic one and includes all types of bicycles and recumbents, and
2. This registration would not include legitimate on or off road cycle races, but would be payable
if you intended to train on the road.

Q1. Do you think that motorists would accept you being on the road more, if you were required to
register your bicycle in order to ride on the public road? Yes/No

Q2. If you were required to register your bicycle, would you accept the requirement more if the cost
of it meant that you received a discount on the cost of registering your, or a nominated motor
vehicle? Yes/No

Q3. If you were required to register your bicycle, would you accept a cost of say $10 per single,
$15 per couple, $25 per family (3 or more bikes for persons aged over 12 years of age) Yes/No

Q4. If you were required to register your bicycle would you want the registration to include Third
Party Insurance? Yes/No

Q5. If you were required to register your bicycle do you think that the registration would assist to
reduce the incidence of theft or assist in the recovery of those bicycles? Yes/No

Q6. If you were required to register your bicycle would you consider a method of being paid per
documented ride as a rebate on motor vehicle registration, or as a payment? Yes/No

Q7. If you were required to register your bicycle would you prefer a personalised plate? Yes/No

Q8. What country do you live in?

Again, thank you for your participation.

 

On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:17:54 +1000, "Andrew & Joanne"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Q1. Do you think that motorists would accept you being on the road more, if you were required to
> register your bicycle in order to ride on the public road? Yes/No

No, Motorists are too bloody minded to accept cyclists

>Q2. If you were required to register your bicycle, would you accept the requirement more if the
> cost of it meant that you received a discount on the cost of registering your, or a nominated
> motor vehicle? Yes/No

No, that's rather counter productive actually

>Q3. If you were required to register your bicycle, would you accept a cost of say $10 per single,
> $15 per couple, $25 per family (3 or more bikes for persons aged over 12 years of age) Yes/No

No!

>Q4. If you were required to register your bicycle would you want the registration to include Third
> Party Insurance? Yes/No

No, I'd rather keep the present situation of per-individual insurance through user groups than CTP
style per-vehicle insurance

>Q5. If you were required to register your bicycle do you think that the registration would assist
> to reduce the incidence of theft or assist in the recovery of those bicycles? Yes/No

No, not in the slightest

>Q6. If you were required to register your bicycle would you consider a method of being paid per
> documented ride as a rebate on motor vehicle registration, or as a payment? Yes/No

No, that's rather insane actually

>Q7. If you were required to register your bicycle would you prefer a personalised plate? Yes/No

No, I'd rather a very small plate, to minimise wind resistance.. You can't put much of a message on
s very small plate..

>Q8. What country do you live in?

Australia.. Duh! You ask this yet you post on aus.bicycle..

 

> Q1. Do you think that motorists would accept you being on the road more, if you were required to
> register your bicycle in order to ride on the public road? Yes/No

No. (Bikes are accepted here already. Both in tradition and law)

> Q2. If you were required to register your bicycle, would you accept the requirement more if the
> cost of it meant that you received a discount on the cost of registering your, or a nominated
> motor vehicle? Yes/No

No. (No car and no need for one)

> Q3. If you were required to register your bicycle, would you accept a cost of say $10 per single,
> $15 per couple, $25 per family (3 or more bikes for persons aged over 12 years of age) Yes/No

NO! (Theres already plenty of creative ways to tax me. Don't need another)

> Q4. If you were required to register your bicycle would you want the registration to include Third
> Party Insurance? Yes/No

No. (Already covered in my regular insurance I believe)

> Q5. If you were required to register your bicycle do you think that the registration would assist
> to reduce the incidence of theft or assist in the recovery of those bicycles? Yes/No

Yes. (But that could be acheived without registration. Financed by the money the insurance companies
would save if every new bike was fitted with a unique number on the frame like here.)

> Q6. If you were required to register your bicycle would you consider a method of being paid per
> documented ride as a rebate on motor vehicle registration, or as a payment? Yes/No

No. (And it would be hard to document anyway unless you could track my bike and see that I used it
for commuting etc. Still be lots of ways to cheat.)

> Q7. If you were required to register your bicycle would you prefer a personalised plate? Yes/No

No.

> Q8. What country do you live in?

Denmark.

Cheers Mikael

 

"PC" skrev

> Australia.. Duh! You ask this yet you post on aus.bicycle..

Well if you check the header, you will notice it was crossposted to an international newsgroup also.

Cheers! Mikael, Denmark

 

>Q1. Do you think that motorists would accept you being on the road more, if you were required to
> register your bicycle in order to ride on the public road? Yes/No

No.

>Q2. If you were required to register your bicycle, would you accept the requirement more if the
> cost of it meant that you received a discount on the cost of registering your, or a nominated
> motor vehicle? Yes/No

No.

>Q3. If you were required to register your bicycle, would you accept a cost of say $10 per single,
> $15 per couple, $25 per family (3 or more bikes for persons aged over 12 years of age) Yes/No

No. Why waste money?

>Q4. If you were required to register your bicycle would you want the registration to include Third
> Party Insurance? Yes/No

No.

>Q5. If you were required to register your bicycle do you think that the registration would assist
> to reduce the incidence of theft or assist in the recovery of those bicycles? Yes/No

No. I'd like to park my bike in a guarded & rain covered place when visiting the center of the city.

>Q6. If you were required to register your bicycle would you consider a method of being paid per
> documented ride as a rebate on motor vehicle registration, or as a payment? Yes/No

???

>Q7. If you were required to register your bicycle would you prefer a personalised plate? Yes/No

No. I could make the plate for myself now, if i wanted one

>Q8. What country do you live in?

Finland.

I also don't want to pay tax money to finance the bureaucrazy for this.

 

Andrew & Joanne wrote:

Assume a no answer to everything.

But a more interesting question would be, what could cyclists expect in return for paying for
registration of their bicycles?

And on the subject of registration plates, I don't know anyone who wouldn't laugh at the idea.

--
Linux Registered User # 302622 <http://counter.li.org

 

Andrew & Joanne wrote:
> ... NOTES
> 1. The term bicycle here is a generic one and includes all types of bicycles and recumbents...

RECUMBENTS ARE BICYCLES. [1]

[1] Unless they have more than two wheels.

Tom Sherman - Various HPV's Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

Andrew, No to all the questions Denny in Sayre, Pa www.recumbentstuff.com

"Andrew & Joanne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Greetings to all readers.
>
> I am currently compiling a paper regarding the registration of bicycles
for
> use on our roads. Now at the risk of being called a troll, and evoking emotional and abusive
> replies, I would like to ask you all a few questions to gauge your reactions to the following
> questions.
>
> I would appreciate single yes/no answers as opposed to emotive scripts or long discussions. Thank
> you for your participation in advance.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/andrewhooker59/CycleTouring.html Please remove the REMOVE_THIS_TO_REPLY
> in our address to reply direct.
> --
> NOTES
> 1. The term bicycle here is a generic one and includes all types of
bicycles
> and recumbents, and
> 2. This registration would not include legitimate on or off road cycle races, but would be payable
> if you intended to train on the road.
>
> Q1. Do you think that motorists would accept you being on the road more,
if
> you were required to register your bicycle in order to ride on the public road? Yes/No
>
> Q2. If you were required to register your bicycle, would you accept the requirement more if the
> cost of it meant that you received a discount on
the
> cost of registering your, or a nominated motor vehicle? Yes/No
>
> Q3. If you were required to register your bicycle, would you accept a cost of say $10 per single,
> $15 per couple, $25 per family (3 or more bikes for persons aged over 12 years of age) Yes/No
>
> Q4. If you were required to register your bicycle would you want the registration to include Third
> Party Insurance? Yes/No
>
> Q5. If you were required to register your bicycle do you think that the registration would assist
> to reduce the incidence of theft or assist in
the
> recovery of those bicycles? Yes/No
>
> Q6. If you were required to register your bicycle would you consider a method of being paid per
> documented ride as a rebate on motor vehicle registration, or as a payment? Yes/No
>
> Q7. If you were required to register your bicycle would you prefer a personalised plate? Yes/No
>
> Q8. What country do you live in?
>
> Again, thank you for your participation.

 

The presumption that government is the source of most problems and never the solution to problems,
is a good one.
--
Bill "Pop Pop" Patterson Retired and riding my Linear, my front drive low racer and our M5 tandem.

See some Bikes At:

http://home.earthlink.net/~wm.patterson/index.html

PC

http://www.roadkillbill.com/r135.html

Class and Helicopter

http://www.calpoly.edu/~wpatters/

Reply to [email protected]

 

What we really need is compulsory bicycle riding schools and driving licences for bicycle riders.

--

"Andrew & Joanne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Greetings to all readers.
>
> I am currently compiling a paper regarding the registration of bicycles
for
> use on our roads. Now at the risk of being called a troll, and evoking emotional and abusive
> replies, I would like to ask you all a few questions to gauge your reactions to the following
> questions.
>
> I would appreciate single yes/no answers as opposed to emotive scripts or long discussions. Thank
> you for your participation in advance.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/andrewhooker59/CycleTouring.html Please remove the REMOVE_THIS_TO_REPLY
> in our address to reply direct.
> --
> NOTES
> 1. The term bicycle here is a generic one and includes all types of
bicycles
> and recumbents, and
> 2. This registration would not include legitimate on or off road cycle races, but would be payable
> if you intended to train on the road.
>
> Q1. Do you think that motorists would accept you being on the road more,
if
> you were required to register your bicycle in order to ride on the public road? Yes/No
>
> Q2. If you were required to register your bicycle, would you accept the requirement more if the
> cost of it meant that you received a discount on
the
> cost of registering your, or a nominated motor vehicle? Yes/No
>
> Q3. If you were required to register your bicycle, would you accept a cost of say $10 per single,
> $15 per couple, $25 per family (3 or more bikes for persons aged over 12 years of age) Yes/No
>
> Q4. If you were required to register your bicycle would you want the registration to include Third
> Party Insurance? Yes/No
>
> Q5. If you were required to register your bicycle do you think that the registration would assist
> to reduce the incidence of theft or assist in
the
> recovery of those bicycles? Yes/No
>
> Q6. If you were required to register your bicycle would you consider a method of being paid per
> documented ride as a rebate on motor vehicle registration, or as a payment? Yes/No
>
> Q7. If you were required to register your bicycle would you prefer a personalised plate? Yes/No
>
> Q8. What country do you live in?
>
> Again, thank you for your participation.

 

On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:17:54 +1000, "Andrew & Joanne"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Q1. Do you think that motorists would accept you being on the road more, if you were required to
> register your bicycle in order to ride on the public road?

NO. It's a false objection. Having overcome the "no right to be on the road" irrationalisation, same
motorists would justify their hatred of cyclists with another.

>Q2. If you were required to register your bicycle, would you accept the requirement more if the
> cost of it meant that you received a discount on the cost of registering your, or a nominated
> motor vehicle?

NO

>Q3. If you were required to register your bicycle, would you accept a cost of say $10 per single,
> $15 per couple, $25 per family (3 or more bikes for persons aged over 12 years of age)

NO

>Q4. If you were required to register your bicycle would you want the registration to include Third
> Party Insurance?

NO

>Q5. If you were required to register your bicycle do you think that the registration would assist
> to reduce the incidence of theft or assist in the recovery of those bicycles?

NO. This IS a joke..isn't it? ;P

>Q6. If you were required to register your bicycle would you consider a method of being paid per
> documented ride as a rebate on motor vehicle registration, or as a payment?

NO

>Q7. If you were required to register your bicycle would you prefer a personalised plate?

NO. Cyclists differ from motorists. We prefer to leave excessive ego behind. That's why most of us
ride. (I think?).

>Q8. What country do you live in?

Australia

 

>What we really need is compulsory bicycle riding schools and driving licences for bicycle riders.

Why? Evidence abounds that driving schools and compulsory license testing doesn't alter motorist
behaviour or increase skill above basic mechanical operation of the vehicle, so why would you
suggest similar would affect cyclist behaviour any differently?

How about this as an alternative. Stop driving the bloody kids to school in the bully barred urban
terror taxi and make them cycle or walk so they develop some common bloody road sense whilst they're
young and impressionable.

Iguana Bwana

 

Andrew & Joanne wrote:

> Q1. Do you think that motorists would accept you being on the road more, if you were required to
> register your bicycle in order to ride on the public road? Yes/No

No, but you should ask them. Our opinion of what their thoughts are is heresay it seems to me.

> Q2. If you were required to register your bicycle, would you accept the requirement more if the
> cost of it meant that you received a discount on the cost of registering your, or a nominated
> motor vehicle? Yes/No

No. What would be the point? Those who don't drive at all would then be punished.

> Q3. If you were required to register your bicycle, would you accept a cost of say $10 per single,
> $15 per couple, $25 per family (3 or more bikes for persons aged over 12 years of age) Yes/No

If we were required, our acceptance is moot, no? I think the question is flawed.

> Q4. If you were required to register your bicycle would you want the registration to include Third
> Party Insurance? Yes/No

Third party? Like if we hit and kill someone on our bikes? I don't understand the question.

> Q5. If you were required to register your bicycle do you think that the registration would assist
> to reduce the incidence of theft or assist in the recovery of those bicycles? Yes/No

Hell no.

> Q6. If you were required to register your bicycle would you consider a method of being paid per
> documented ride as a rebate on motor vehicle registration, or as a payment? Yes/No

What? You are proposing a "Department of Bicycle Ride Documentation" ?

> Q7. If you were required to register your bicycle would you prefer a personalised plate? Yes/No

Yes, as long as it was allowed to have dirty words on it.

> Q8. What country do you live in?

The U.S.

> Again, thank you for your participation.

You're welcome!

 

Bill Patterson wrote:
>
> The presumption that government is the source of most problems and never the solution to problems,
> is a good one.

Healthcare Reveals Real "Conservative" Agenda - Drown Democracy In A Bathtub

By Thom Hartmann

They're hoping Americans won't notice.

Indeed, in late February a "senior administration official" presented The New York Times with a
masterpiece of obfuscation and avoidance of responsibility. Speaking of the administration's plans
to push users of Medicare and Medicaid into the hands of for-profit corporations, this "official"
said, "We're looking at two programs that have worked, that have provided health coverage to people
who need it, and we want to help them work better."

Ted Kennedy was more straightforward in his objection to the Bush scheme. "Medicare is a firm
commitment to every elderly American," Kennedy said, "not a profit center for H.M.O.s and other
private insurance plans."

Robin Toner and Robert Pear of The New York Times wrote in an understated tone that, "The magnitude
of the Bush proposals is only gradually dawning on members of Congress."

It's also dawning on mainstream Americans.

When you look closely, you discover that what so many are calling the "conservative agenda" would be
shocking and alien to historic conservatives like Republicans Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower,
and Barry Goldwater. It really has nothing to do with conservative or liberal, left or right, war or
peace. It doesn't care about abortion, prayer, or flags, although these are useful props to bring in
fringe groups to "fill the big tent." It's not even about liberty, freedom, or prosperity.

Today's so-called "conservative agenda" is, very simply, about ownership.

Specifically, ownership of the assets of the United States of America - things previously owned by
"We, The People." And, ultimately, ownership of the United States government itself.

Here's how it works.

In a democracy there are some things we all own together.

Often referred to as "the commons," they include the necessities and commonalties of life: our air,
water, septic systems, transportation routes, educational systems, radio and TV spectrums, and, in
every developed nation in the world except America, the nation's health care system.

But the most important of the commons in a democracy is the government itself.

The Founders' idea of a democratic republic was to create a common institution owned by its own
citizens, answerable to its own citizens, and authorized to exist and continue existing solely "by
the consent of the governed."

And make no mistake - it's democracy itself that is today at risk.

As the prescient Chief Justice of Wisconsin's Supreme Court, Edward G. Ryan said ominously in his
1873 speech to the graduating class of the University of Wisconsin Law School, "[There] is looming
up a new and dark power... the enterprises of the country are aggregating vast corporate
combinations of unexampled capital, boldly marching, not for economical conquests only, but for
political power... The question will arise and arise in your day, though perhaps not fully in mine,
which shall rule - wealth or man; which shall lead - money or intellect; who shall fill public
stations - educated and patriotic freemen, or the feudal serfs of corporate capital...."

We're entering a new and unknown, but hauntingly familiar, era. The Bush plans to privatize parts of
Medicare are just one thread in the larger fabric of this "new world order."

It's new because it represents a virtual abandonment of the egalitarian and democratic archetypes
the founders of the United States put into place in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. And it's
hauntingly familiar because it resembles in many ways one of the most stable and long-term of all
social structures to have ever established itself in the modern history of civilization: feudalism.

Feudalism doesn't refer to a point in time or history when streets were filled with mud and people
lived as peasants (although that was sometimes the case). Instead, it refers to an economic and
political system, just like "democracy" or "communism" or "socialism" or "theocracy."

In a feudal state, power is held by those who own the greatest wealth. At its essential core,
feudalism could be defined as "government of, by, and for the rich."

Marc Bloch is one of the great 20th Century scholars of the feudal history of Europe. In his book
Feudal Society he points out that feudalism is a fracturing of one authoritarian hierarchical
structure into another: the state disintegrates, as unelected but wealthy power brokers take over.

In almost every case, both with European feudalism and feudalism in China, South America, and Japan,
Bloch notes that "feudalism coincided with a profound weakening of the State, particularly in its
protective capacity." Given most accepted definitions of feudalism, feudal societies don't emerge in
civilizations with a strong social safety net and a proactive government.

There is a slight debate, in that some scholars like Benjamin Guérard say feudalism must be
land-based, whereas Jacques Flach and others suggest the structure of power and obligation is the
key. But the consensus is that when the wealthiest in a society take over government and then weaken
it so it no longer can represent the interests of the people, the transition has begun into a new
era of feudalism. "European feudalism should therefore be seen as the outcome of the violent
dissolution of older societies," Bloch says.

Whether the power and wealth agent that takes the place of government is a local baron, lord, king,
or corporation, if it has greater power in the lives of individuals than does a representative
government, the culture has dissolved into feudalism. Bluntly, Bloch states: "The feudal system
meant the rigorous economic subjection of a host of humble folk to a few powerful men."

This doesn't mean the end of government, but, instead the subordination of government to the
interests of the feudal lords. Interestingly, even in Feudal Europe, Bloch points out, "The concept
of the State never absolutely disappeared, and where it retained the most vitality, men continued to
call themselves 'free'..."

The transition from a governmental society to a feudal one is marked by the rapid accumulation of
power and wealth in a few hands, with a corresponding reduction in the power and responsibilities of
government. Once the rich and powerful gain control of the government, they turn it upon itself,
usually first eliminating its taxation process as it applies to themselves. Says Bloch: "Nobles need
not pay taille [taxes]."

Bringing this to today, consider that in 1982, just before the Reagan-Bush "supply side" tax cut,
the average wealth of the Forbes 400 was $200 million. Just four years later, their average wealth
was $500 million each, aided by massive tax cuts. Today, those 400 people own wealth equivalent to
one-eighth of the entire gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States.

And those who would take over the government of the United States have a specific plan for how to do
it. It begins with tax cuts, which are then followed by handing government-mandated services over to
private corporations.

Tax cuts are not just about kowtowing to the Nobles of the new conservative feudal state. Although
that happens, the most important function of tax cuts is to deprive government of oxygen.

The result is that the government must then turn to private corporations
- the new feudal lords - to administer the commons. This shift of the commons ranges from the
commons of health care for the elderly to the commons of the vote, as we're seeing now with
private corporations linked to hard-right Republicans taking over the election systems of states
like Georgia, Florida, and Texas.

According to hard-right Republicans, killing off government to make way for corporate rule is truly
at the core of the so-called "conservative agenda." For example, the lead cheerleader for Bush's
tax-cutting fervor is a man named Grover Norquist, well known to every politician in Washington.

"I don't want to abolish government," Norquist told National Public Radio's Mara Liasson in a May
25, 2001 Morning Edition interview. "I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into
the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

At first, gullible politicians and voters thought drowning a democratic government in the bathtub
was, at worse, just another way for big business to make more money. It might even make some of the
functions of government more efficient, they thought, even though any benefits of that efficiency
would be turned over to stockholders and CEOs rather than the broader public that uses the commons.

Take over power plants and water systems built with tax dollars, privatize hospitals built with tax
dollars, run private prisons with tax dollars, auction off the airwaves to for-profit enterprises.
It built empires, like Bill Frist's vast hospital fortune, and made wealth more of a politically
defining factor than party affiliation.

It is corporatism, to use Mussolini's word (which he later renamed "fascism"): "a merging of
corporate and state interests." It's simply the modern version of feudalism.

The greatest force promoting corporatism in America is the mistaken interpretation of the court
reporter's headnotes in the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case before the
Supreme Court. That mistaken interpretation granted human rights to corporations, thus enabling
them to use "free speech" to buy politicians and thus strike down laws against corporate
political activity.

But there's a movement growing across America to rescue democracy from the conservatives' bathtub.

Communities have passed resolutions and laws denying corporate personhood, and cases like Kasky v.
Nike are showing up before the Supreme Court that may bring these questions into the open. And,
perhaps most important, the naked corporate grab of government in an administration made almost
entirely of corporate CEOs, is being outed.

America's largest progressive talk radio network, broadcast from Alaska to Florida and available
on the web at www.ieamericaradio.com, runs 12 hours of programming a day that openly discusses
these issues, and regularly attacks "the Bush Crime Family." Radio stations across the nation are
starting to seek out progressive programming, with AnShell Media developing a new progressive
talk radio network, and even the right-wing bastion Fox announcing this week that they've
syndicated the moderate democrat Alan Colmes with a talk show in a handful of the largest of
America's radio markets.

Unions - the traditional defenders of working-class people - are becoming politically active and
pointing out that all people who draw a paycheck, be they blue- or white-collar workers, are
suffering from the new American feudalism. Check out www.uaw.org and www.aflcio.org for an
extraordinary insight into how clear America's unions have become in their understanding of the true
neo-conservative agenda, and how it can be challenged.

Hopefully one day soon such open plain speaking may even reach the website of the party founded by
Thomas Jefferson, although for now the activist-run www.democrats.com site far outstrips the Party's
www.democrats.org for clarity, purpose, and political momentum.

Perhaps, as Leonard Cohen sings, "Democracy is coming to the USA." If so, while the opportunity is
still available to \us, this nation's citizens must listen, join, share, read, campaign, and
enlighten others. It will be no small effort to roll back the damage done by the so-called
conservative feudalists, but if we are to bring democracy back to the land of its modern rebirth we
must awaken, step forth, and speak out.

---

Thom Hartmann is the author of "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of
Human Rights." www.unequalprotection.com and www.thomhartmann.com. This article is copyright by Thom
Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, or web media so long as this credit
is attached.

 

Yes, it might be an interesting question, but that's not the thrust of my paper. And, in what I
asked, the cyclist would receive a discount on their motor vehicle registration so there is
something in return. regards Andrew "John Tserkezis" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> Andrew & Joanne wrote:
>
> Assume a no answer to everything.
>
> But a more interesting question would be, what could cyclists expect in return for paying for
> registration of their bicycles?
>
> And on the subject of registration plates, I don't know anyone who
wouldn't
> laugh at the idea.
>
> --
> Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org

 

Yes, recumbents are bicycles, and that's why I said "and includes all types of bicycles and
recumbents" meaning all types of bicycles and all types of recumbents, of which I have two.

regards,

Andrew

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Andrew & Joanne wrote:
> > ... NOTES
> > 1. The term bicycle here is a generic one and includes all types of
bicycles
> > and recumbents...
>
> RECUMBENTS ARE BICYCLES. [1]
>
> [1] Unless they have more than two wheels.
>
> Tom Sherman - Various HPV's Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

Good idea, but who will pay for it? Who will be required to attend and when? Who will police it?
etc, etc etc.

regards,

Andrew

news:[email protected]...
> What we really need is compulsory bicycle riding schools and driving licences for bicycle riders.
>
> --
>
> "Andrew & Joanne" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Greetings to all readers.
> >
> > I am currently compiling a paper regarding the registration of bicycles
> for
> > use on our roads. Now at the risk of being called a troll, and evoking emotional and abusive
> > replies, I would like to ask you all a few
questions
> > to gauge your reactions to the following questions.
> >
> > I would appreciate single yes/no answers as opposed to emotive scripts
or
> > long discussions. Thank you for your participation in advance.
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/andrewhooker59/CycleTouring.html Please remove the REMOVE_THIS_TO_REPLY
> > in our address to reply direct.
> > --
> > NOTES
> > 1. The term bicycle here is a generic one and includes all types of
> bicycles
> > and recumbents, and
> > 2. This registration would not include legitimate on or off road cycle races, but would be
> > payable if you intended to train on the road.
> >
> > Q1. Do you think that motorists would accept you being on the road more,
> if
> > you were required to register your bicycle in order to ride on the
public
> > road? Yes/No
> >
> > Q2. If you were required to register your bicycle, would you accept the requirement more if the
> > cost of it meant that you received a discount on
> the
> > cost of registering your, or a nominated motor vehicle? Yes/No
> >
> > Q3. If you were required to register your bicycle, would you accept a
cost
> > of say $10 per single, $15 per couple, $25 per family (3 or more bikes
for
> > persons aged over 12 years of age) Yes/No
> >
> > Q4. If you were required to register your bicycle would you want the registration to include
> > Third Party Insurance? Yes/No
> >
> > Q5. If you were required to register your bicycle do you think that the registration would
> > assist to reduce the incidence of theft or assist in
> the
> > recovery of those bicycles? Yes/No
> >
> > Q6. If you were required to register your bicycle would you consider a method of being paid per
> > documented ride as a rebate on motor vehicle registration, or as a payment? Yes/No
> >
> > Q7. If you were required to register your bicycle would you prefer a personalised plate? Yes/No
> >
> > Q8. What country do you live in?
> >
> > Again, thank you for your participation.
> >
>

 

Maduto wrote:

> What we really need is compulsory bicycle riding schools and driving licences for bicycle riders.

What about the car drivers who _cause_ the fatalities in the first place?

--
Linux Registered User # 302622 <http://counter.li.org

 

Andrew & Joanne wrote:
>
> Yes, recumbents are bicycles, and that's why I said "and includes all types of bicycles and
> recumbents" meaning all types of bicycles and all types of recumbents, of which I have two.

Andrew,

I understand your intentions, but saying "bicycles and recumbents" grammatically implies that
recumbents are not bicycles.

Tom Sherman - Recumbent Pedant Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

Andrew & Joanne wrote:

>> But a more interesting question would be, what could cyclists expect in return for paying for
>> registration of their bicycles? And on the subject of registration plates, I don't know anyone
>> who wouldn't laugh at the idea.

> Yes, it might be an interesting question, but that's not the thrust of my paper. And, in what I
> asked, the cyclist would receive a discount on their motor vehicle registration so there is
> something in return.

As far as I can see, all this will do is encourage people to use cars more. The bicycle will sit
unused gathering dust ONLY because they are getting a discount on their car registration.

Some time back, I read that something like 80% of homes (families?) have a bicycle, and it gets
used twice a year. If the bicycle registration is cheaper than the car registration, you can be
sure the bike will stay exactly where it is gathering dust.

Or worse, people buying bicycle registrations for bikes they don't have simply because of the
car discount.

--
Linux Registered User # 302622 <http://counter.li.org