Bicycle Registration

[Mark Lee]

"Dave Patterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Dear friend,
SNIP I ran a 2mile steep run down hill 30mph i was doing 45mph down
> this hill, and i had drivers blaze past me at60+!!! This is what you call the "DOG" factor. Like a
> dog,the driver sees some poor schmuck on his pedal pusher burning no gas but buzzing better than
> his steel BOMB and the idiot stomps the gas and goes for the chase! Iguess to prove that he can go
> faster than the bike! BARK BARK BARK. And if given a chance he would try and bite you too!!! DP
> BIKE-E CT

Yeh, I was doing 60kph downhill in a 50 zone on Friday (in the middle of the lane to discourage
dangerous overtaking). Small white car overtook (75kph?) then had to immediately slow down for
vehicle in front of me and roundabout. I drew up beside him (on the flat at about 45kph) and said
"Was that really

They hate us because we are smaller or because we look healthy or whatever... because we're too slow
(or fast!). A plate will make no diff. Mark Lee

 

[Bah]

In aus.bicycle Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> .au
>
> Such non-cyclist accepting motorists should be forcibly converted to cyclists by having their
> motor vehicles impounded and drivers' licenses revoked (at least on a temporary basic) and being
> required to use HPV's as transportation.

I think Id pay to see that =)

> If ".au" is a country, this brings up an interesting question. Since URL's from the United States
> of America (USA) do not have a country of origin identifier (.usa?) at the end, does this mean
> that the USA is not a country, or does it mean that the USA intends to rule the rest of the world
> in an imperial manner?

I think the latter, otherwise they would be using .us, I mean they have it, they just dont use it,
oh no mention of current activities either.

Bah.

 

[Jason King]

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

IMHO, a better direction to go is compulsory driver retesting with each renewal, less focus on
speeding and more on driver competency, and drop the legal differentiation between deaths caused
when behind the wheel of a car and those caused when behind any other lethal weapon, involuntary
manslaughter is involuntary manslaughter.

--
Jason King To demunge email: strip invalid, ROT13, add com

 

[Bentbiker]

here here. what are people thinking of having ANY e-mail set up to bottom load. Problem may be
though, many people don't know how to change the "preferance" to do this.

Rob Rudeski wrote:
> AT LAST!!!!
>
> Something on which I completely agree with Tom Sherman!
>
> Rob
>
> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Steve McDonald wrote:
>>
>>> No matter which group you use, you'll always find a few anal-retentives who insist you have
>>> to adhere to their dogma that top-posting is improper....
>>
>>I believe that this argument will be settled at the same time everyone agrees on the correct
>>orientation [1] to hang toilet paper and paper towel rolls on a dispenser.
>>
>>[1] The rolls should be mounted so the point where the paper hangs tangentially to the rotating
>> axis of the roll is away from (or not adjacent to) the structure that the dispenser is mounted
>> to. [2] Anyone who believes differently is a cretin.
>>[2] This picture shows the correct orientation. < http://www.parktool.com/tools/TP_2.shtml >
>>
>>Tom Sherman - Various HPV's Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
>

 

[Skip]

Me too. But I'd have never known if he hadn't shown the picture.

skip

"Rob Rudeski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> AT LAST!!!!
>
> Something on which I completely agree with Tom Sherman!
>
> Rob
>
> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Steve McDonald wrote:
> > >
> > > No matter which group you use, you'll always find a few anal-retentives who insist you
> > > have to adhere to their dogma that top-posting is improper....
> >
> > I believe that this argument will be settled at the same time everyone agrees on the correct
> > orientation [1] to hang toilet paper and paper towel rolls on a dispenser.
> >
> > [1] The rolls should be mounted so the point where the paper hangs tangentially to the rotating
> > axis of the roll is away from (or not adjacent to) the structure that the dispenser is
> > mounted to. [2] Anyone who believes differently is a cretin.
> > [2] This picture shows the correct orientation. < http://www.parktool.com/tools/TP_2.shtml >
> >
> > Tom Sherman - Various HPV's Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

[John Foltz]

Bah wrote:
> In aus.bicycle Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> If ".au" is a country, this brings up an interesting question. Since URL's from the United
>> States of America (USA) do not have a country of origin identifier (.usa?) at the end, does this
>> mean that the USA is not a country, or does it mean that the USA intends to rule the rest of the
>> world in an imperial manner?
>
>
> I think the latter, otherwise they would be using .us, I mean they have it, they just dont use
> it, oh no mention of current activities either.
>
Interesting explanation, but I think it's more likely that country identifiers weren't needed until
the Internet expanded to outside of the U.S.
--

John Foltz --- O _ Baron --- _O _ V-Rex 24/63 --- _\\/\-%)
_________(_)`=()___________________(_)= (_)_____

 

[Anthony Morton]

Andrew & Joanne <[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

Whether you get abused on Usenet all depends on your manners, and your willingness to engage in
debate. Going on the defensive before you've even said anything doesn't endear you to the online
community. Nor does a flat refusal to entertain discussion.

>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.

This is setting yourself up for hostile responses. You insinuate that riding on the road is
incidental to training for a race. To the people who will be most affected by compulsory bike
registration, riding on the road is essential to getting from A to B (that's what roads are for
after all). Some of us ride on the road just because it's a great way to travel; the exercise
is a bonus.

>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.

Cyclists not having to pay rego is a pretext, not a reason, to hate cyclists who ride on the road.
Motorists who hate cyclists do so because bicycles are an obstacle to them, like anything else
moving slower than the speed
limit. As long as our transport culture teaches people that owning a car gives them a special right
to travel free of obstacles, finding another pretext to hate cyclists won't be difficult.

>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.

The very suggestion is insane. Not only would you be opposed by every cyclist who doesn't own a car
(who are more numerous than you appear to think), you would be requiring the government to forgo
revenue as part of your plan. Thus handing the cyclist-haters another excuse, in the form of envy
for the cyclists who get discounts on their car rego.

>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.

The bureaucratic apparatus required to collect this amount from every owner of a bicycle, to stamp
out plates and to police the system would cost more than the amount collected. A detailed argument
to this effect was read into Hansard by the NSW Minister for Transport some years ago; unfortunately
I don't have a citation handy.

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

No.

Compulsory third party insurance is necessary for motor vehicles because it's so easy to turn a car
into a lethal weapon. There's no more reason to have CTP for my bicycle than for my steel-capped
hiking boots.

>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.

It doesn't even really help with car theft.

>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.

If I had to register my bike I would be paying money to the government. Why am I the one being paid
here? I'm not sure I understand the question.

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

No.

My ego's not that fragile.

>Q8. What country do you live in?

The Land of Oz.

Regards, Tony M.

 

[John Foltz]

brian hughes wrote:
> Speaking of taxes, in the USA there are tax breaks for buying a qualified electric vehicle or a
> clean-fuel vehicle. But there are certain requirements like having 4-wheels and a motor. What's up
> with that?
>
That's easy. Since everyone knows bikes only cost $89.95 at Walmart, it's not worth giving a tax
incentive. Watch out, if they discover you paid $149.95 or more they will want to hit you with a
luxury tax!
--

John Foltz --- O _ Baron --- _O _ V-Rex 24/63 --- _\\/\-%)
_________(_)`=()___________________(_)= (_)_____

 

[Andrew Swanson]

In article <[email protected]>, "Rob Rudeski" <[email protected]> wrote:

> AT LAST!!!!
>
> Something on which I completely agree with Tom Sherman!
>
> Rob
>
> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > I believe that this argument will be settled at the same time everyone agrees on the correct
> > orientation [1] to hang toilet paper and paper towel rolls on a dispenser.
> >
> > [1] The rolls should be mounted so the point where the paper hangs tangentially to the rotating
> > axis of the roll is away from (or not adjacent to) the structure that the dispenser is
> > mounted to. [2] Anyone who believes differently is a cretin.
> > [2] This picture shows the correct orientation. < http://www.parktool.com/tools/TP_2.shtml >
> >
> > Tom Sherman - Various HPV's Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
>
>

I think the correct orientation for hanging these things depends upon whether there is a cat in
the house.

Andy

--
Anyone who does not, at least occasionally, read a newspaper from another country cannot claim to be
well informed on any international issue. (Especially now that you can do it on the internet.)

 

[Dorre]

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. It would make things ***one hell of a lot worse***. Some very recent research has found that the
injury rate of cyclists is strongly related to the number of cyclists in a given area. This has been
noted in 6-8 different datasets of cyclist injuries vs amount of cycling in several different
countries and also across countries. The relationships are pretty convincing and look almost
identical in each case. If the number of cyclists on the roads halves, the research shows that
injury rate per cyclist increases by an average of 60%.

Registration could easily halve the amount of cycling - do you really want your risk of injury to
increase by 60%?

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. Both cyclists and the environment would be better off if the cost of registering motor vehicles
were reduced to a nominal administrative fee, with road user charges (including CTP) raised by a
levy on petrol/diesel. Cars that are kept in the garage do no harm to anyone. It's insane to tax
motor vehicle ownership instead of motor vehicle use. It's also inequitable. Those who can't afford
to drive much pay the same as those who drive hundreds of kms a day and so have a much greater
chance of needing their CTP insurance.

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. You mean CTP insurance for the medical costs to other road users, similar to that required for
car drivers? How many road users are injured severely enough to require medical treatment every year
by cyclists? Wouldn't the administration costs be 10 or 100 times more than the cost of the claims?
Do you really think this is a sensible idea?

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

Not really. Some indelible identification on the frame may help, but I can't see why registration
would make any difference. Registration wouldn't necessarily even require indelible id on the frame!

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

I'd much rather follow the "user-pays" principle and charge motorists (via a petrol/diesel levy) for
the true costs of using the roads, including greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. If we did
this, we could reduce other taxes, or have enough money to fix up our hospitals, medicare and all
the other things Governments should be doing but claim they can't because of lack of funds.

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

No. It would probably increase the weight and wind resistance. Of course, I might not bother
registering the bike - just use the car instead. I'm sure that, like the helmet law, it would deter
people from cycling.

Q8. What country do you live in? Australia

 

[Dorre]

Iguana Bwana <[email protected]> wrote:

:>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?

What might help would be relating the cost of third party insurance to the risk posed by the
driver. At the moment, in Australia, everyone pays pretty similar rates, even totally
irresponsible drivers who speed, have convictions for drink-driving, or have injured several
people in the past few years.

Our policicians argue that driving is a right not a priviledge, so we must subsidize these
irresponsible maniacs to allow them to remain on the roads (except for any periods where they
actually lose their licences).

There are many ways this could be remedied. The simplest would be to allow insurance companies to
charge CTP premiums according to risk and, for example, allow them to introduce 'no-claim'
bonuses, as is the norm for motorists who insure against damage to their own or other people's
cars. (Mandatory CTP covers only medical and other health related costs, not damage to other
people's cars. It doesn't even have to cover medical costs of injured drivers).

An even better system would be to allow the above (realistic premiums related to risk) and also
offer an option to use 'smart-card' technology to pay the premium as an additional levy in
c/litre whenever the driver buys petrol. The insurance companies would again set the rate,
depending on their assessed risk, with the levy collected in the same manner as other petrol or
diesel taxes, to be forwarded to the insurance company, who would claim it back, a bit like they
now do GST payments.

This system would ensure that every single driver on the road had CTP insurance - a far cry from
the current, very unsatisfactory, situation.

I repeat what I said earlier. If we want to make the
roads safer, the current situation of subsidizing risky and
reckless drivers to remain on the roads is sheer madness.

Don't people think that having CTP premiums related to risk would do far more to make cycling
safer than mandatory registration for cyclists?

Out of interest, readers in other countries might also like to comment. How many other countries
require the driver to carry insurance for health damage to other people, and is it related to the
risk posed by the driver? How much more would a negligent driver pay?

: 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.

If I recall correctly, drivers in SUVs (aka barred urban terror taxis) have about 10 times the
risk of injuring other people as those driving conventional passenger vehicles. If these drivers
had to pay on average 10 times the CTP premium, I'd bet you see fewer of them on suburban
streets. They'd be reserved for the bush, where they belong.

Dorre

: Iguana Bwana

 

[Jay]

>Mark Lee at [email protected] wrote: Yeh, I was doing 60kph downhill in a 50 zone on Friday
>(in the middle of the lane to discourage dangerous overtaking). Small white car overtook (75kph?)
>then had to immediately slow down for vehicle in front of me and roundabout. I drew up beside him
>(on the flat at about 45kph) and said "Was that really

> They hate us because we are smaller or because we look healthy or whatever... because we're too
> slow (or fast!). A plate will make no diff. Mark Lee

This afternoon a mini van driver who drove past THREE signs saying " DO NOT PASS BICYCLES ON THE
BRIDGE" and the *very* clear multiple and continuous pavement marking that shows the bikes to take
the middle of the lane (near the solid middle dividing line), gunned it in a lower speed zone area
to pass me on that bridge and almost had a head on with another mini van.

Verdict: Selective law-abiding citizen <shrug> I guess it was because I was on a TRIKE and not
a bicycle.

 

[Andrew & Joanne]

No thanks. And the reason is that I don't want to get hung up in a great big debate over the thing.
I was just interested in some feedback via certain questions and that's the way it will stay as far
as I am concerned. regards, Andrew

"PC" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:26:18 +1000, "Andrew & Joanne"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I am not going to debate the pro's and con's with everyone, I was just interested in your
> >responses. Thanks.
>
> How about explaining the logic behind your own suggestion? I think plenty of readers here are
> stunned at your suggestion that cyclists would want cheaper car registration and the least you
> could do is to elaborate..
>
>
> PC
>
> A: Top Posters
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet

 

[Joand'Arcroast]

No to all questions. USA /\/\/¨

 

[Peter Vesel]

I answer Australia to all the questions that fit, and no to all the rest.

Peter

 

[Dave Larrington]

Careful use of the "delete" key and educating Microsith - preferably with a hammer - to not make
top-posting the default behaviour helps immeasurably.

"Do not top-post like a Cretinous Foul-Yob fit only for Stoning" - Mr. Nash.

Dave Larrington - http://legslarry.crosswinds.net/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[Markku Poysti]

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

There has been (at least in Finland) registration plates for bicycles, about 100 years ago. The
detachable plate was a sheet of metal with holes that formed the letters, and the base was red, so
that it was easy to see if somebody was riding a stolen bike.

 

[Ken Kobayashi]

On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 22:06:08 -0500, "Rob Rudeski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I don't understand the opposition to top posting.

The purpose of quoting is to make it clear _which_ part of the message you are responding to. The
natural way to do that is to quote just the section you are replying to, and put your reply jusbe
below that.

> I don't want to have to scroll every time I open a post.

Bottom posting should not force you to scroll far. You are supposed to quote a small section, just
enough so you know which part you are replying to. Did you have to scroll down before you got to my
first paragraph? It's also acceptable to quote a few sentences to remind the reader what the
discussion was about (like I just did at the beginning) and to show the flow of the discussion, but
it's NOT acceptable to quote the entire text and tack on a short reply at the end. There was a time
when many software rejected posts which contained more quoted text than new text.

I don't see why anyone likes top posting. If you are going to write solid stand-alone paragraphs
instead of a section-by-section reply, there is no need to quote the previous text at all. If you
don't remember what the previous discussion was, you can use your newsreader (or web interface) to
go back and read the previous messages.

And in case you are wondering who made those rules, they are common netiquette. Just ask anyone
who's been using UseNet for over 5 years.

Ken Kobayashi [email protected] http://solarwww.mtk.nao.ac.jp/kobayashi/personal/

 

[Mikael Seierup]

"Markku Poysti" skrev...
> > And on the subject of registration plates, I don't know anyone who wouldn't laugh at the idea.
>
> There has been (at least in Finland) registration plates for bicycles, about 100 years ago. The
> detachable plate was a sheet of metal with holes that formed the letters, and the base was red, so
> that it was easy to see if somebody was riding a stolen bike.

And theres a swedish bike around. Its a copy of an old army bike. You can get a license plate with
that too. Quite fashionable in Copenhagen. http://www.kronan.dk/ Nice retro/classic look.

M.

 

[Mike O'Brien]

"Ken Kobayashi" <[email protected]> wrote

> And in case you are wondering who made those rules, they are common netiquette. Just ask anyone
> who's been using UseNet for over 5 years.

And of course "rules" are made to be broken. Some people need to get a life. I wonder if these
tight assed people can ever get really comfortable outside of their square little boxes. Life is
full of choices. Choices have consequences. Emotions often drive those choices. Ergo the delete
key. Deal with it.

Regards,

Mike O'Brien

When two elephants fight it is the grass that suffers...

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.463 / Virus Database: 262 - Release Date: 3/17/2003