You say that:
just me said:remember the road was origenaly made for cars and we do pay registration to use it
But then refute this when challenged by arguing that:
just me said:my issue has never been about road wear when it comes to rego, its the insurance.
Registration and insurance are two separate things.
Registration is effectively a road users tax to pay for maintenance of the roads. The point has already been made that many (and probably most adult) cyclists pay for rego on other vehicles that they own, and that bicycles cause bugger all damage to roads.
Insurance (particularly of the compulsory third party type) is a requirement because if a motor vehicle accident were to occur between a car and another vehicle/person/fixed structure, the damage is likely to be pretty high in terms of costs.
Since the road user at fault is legally obliged to bear responsibility for any damage, insurance policies are enforced so that ANY vehicle that is at fault (irrespective of the driver) in an MVA is covered for any damages to third parties. One way of thinking of it is "sharing the burden of risk management", if you will.
Bicycle users are no different. If a bicycle user is at fault in an accident, then they must bear the cost of damages to the third party. There is no compulsory system of insurance in place, however, I suspect because it would be likely that administering a similar system for bicycle users would be prohibitively expensive.
I suspect it would be more costly than the cost of any damage that may be incurred, given the likelihood of less costly damage occuring in the event of a bicycle accident, and the likely number of bicycle accidents.
FWIW, some cyclists out there are members of their respective state peak organisations (e.g. BNSW), which provide a third party insurance policy as part of their membership fees.
I'm not aware of what proportion of road using cyclists are members, but I expect a higher number would be better!
n
