• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bike tax in Oregon

Can you give a cite for your 19 casualties by cyclist over 5 years where the cyclist is responsible ? I looked up this and other site and could not find it.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-main-results-2011

OTOH it is about 1800 to 1900 years on death on road , and 24000+ with serious injuries.

Also car go onto high speed road. Cyclist are not allowed/do not go onto such road.

That is mostly why a test for car are required. (and yet many car/truck/motorcycle driver are still scofflaws). That is why the "test" everybody seem to be called for cyclist really is dubious *at best*.
 
In the UK, at least, a standard Household policy has a Personal Liability section that covers liability for non motorised vehicles and mobility scooters etc for the entire household. So most (many?) people will actually be insured, even if they (and the 'don't pay insurance and road tax' knobs) don't realise it.

Up until recently I had about fifteen bikes (kind of varies a lot), which I've trimmed down to half a dozen or so. Plus a few for my girlfriend.
Obviously I can only ride one at a time, and 98.78459871238% of my riding is off road. The balance is my 5 minute pootle to work through the village.

How would the number plate etc system work for me? I'm sure I'm not unique.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Why does it have to be at DL centres?
The cycling proficiency test I took wasn't, neither was the (old) part 1 motorcycle test in the UK. I get that you don't like the idea, yes it is a hoop to jump through, but there are also of activities where you have to jump through a hoop or two to participate for your own safety or other people's
Click to expand...

Because it is an inefficient and wasteful hoop along that would strongly discourage riding bicycles and the benefits locales gain from the usage of bicycles over cars.

Cyclists injuring other people is less common than being injured themselves but it does happen-:
Click to expand...

And you know what? After you waste tons of money on a licensing infrastructure, overcharge and inconvenience hordes of cyclists you will still have a handful of injuries and a few deaths. There are a host of better ways to reduce injuries from cyclists, I already listed them and you've been avoiding them.

Government figures in the UK indicated 19 deaths and 431 cases of injury caused by cyclists to pedestrians in the the years 2010-2014.
Click to expand...

Hey! Did you know that drivers kill about 12 pedestrians a month just in NYC? Good thing driver's licenses stopped all those deaths in their tracks...oh wait...

Oh, and did I mention that of those pedestrians killed by drivers, on average 16 per year of them were killed on sidewalks?

That driver license works sooooo well! We have just got to force it on cyclists!
 
I Have household insurance, including liability, and personal health insurance as well. But when I was hit by a car, my health insurance immediately refused to pay any of the bills, because they deemed the other party and her insurance responsible, and I had to sue to recover anything at all. The driver's insurance company ended up hiring a hotshot lawyer, and probably paid him more than they ended up paying out. My lawyer ended up with a third of my settlement, and it took years to get little more than my expenses back for a mix of injuries some of which will plague me for the rest of my life. The mere existence of insurance does not, unfortunately, fix a broken legal system.
 
Your health insurance sounds a bit ****. Again, from a UK perspective (for my sins I work in insurance), it would be up to the policyholder's insurers to sort the policyholder out and then recover from the TP insurer.
Then again, the NHS would have sorted out most of the bills anyway.
 
Aepervius- http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/cy...an-motorists-claims-transport-minister/018723

i disagree with Lord Ahmad's claim but these figures are claimed by the cycling journalist in opposition to it.

The UK maximum speed limit on any road including motorways is 70mph, many dual carriageways have this limit as well, our National speed limit on single lane roads, which includes many country roads is only 10mph less, cyclists are allowed on these so your statement that cyclists aren't on "high speed road" is incorrect I'm afraid. Cyclists might even be safer on the hard shoulder of motorways than on many 60mph country roads!


kookbreaker said:
Because it is an inefficient and wasteful hoop along that would strongly discourage riding bicycles and the benefits locales gain from the usage of bicycles over cars.



And you know what? After you waste tons of money on a licensing infrastructure, overcharge and inconvenience hordes of cyclists you will still have a handful of injuries and a few deaths. There are a host of better ways to reduce injuries from cyclists, I already listed them and you've been avoiding them.



Hey! Did you know that drivers kill about 12 pedestrians a month just in NYC? Good thing driver's licenses stopped all those deaths in their tracks...oh wait...

Oh, and did I mention that of those pedestrians killed by drivers, on average 16 per year of them were killed on sidewalks?


That driver license works sooooo well! We have just got to force it on cyclists!
Click to expand...

I'll let people read my unedited post (where for example I stated that the deaths and injuries to cyclists were much higher than those caused by them and compared it to another vulnerable group, motorcyclists who are also disproportionately injured in accidents).

"That driver license works sooooo well! We have just got to force it on cyclists!" are you honestly suggesting that if we didn't licence drivers (with the expense, inconvenience and hoops that involves), the situation on the roads wouldn't be worse?!? You claim that the costs of a scheme that neither exists nor has been costed or even outlined (the UK scheme I took part in was run by a charity for free for example) will outway the also uncited benefits of untrained cyclists accessing the roads. Period, no discussion.

I was trying to have a sensible discussion that acknowledged both sides of the argument reasonably, car drivers are a bigger risk to cyclists than cyclists are to pedestrians, but some cyclists are also a risk to themselves, training can help mitigate bottom a degree. Obviously you're not and 'm not interested I arguing for the sake of arguing so I'm out, I don't have enough of a stake in the argument to care and I'm happy for my previous posts to stand as to whether my position is reasonable.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
"That driver license works sooooo well! We have just got to force it on cyclists!" are you honestly suggesting that if we didn't licence drivers (with the expense, inconvenience and hoops that involves), the situation on the roads wouldn't be worse?!?
Click to expand...

No. What I am saying is that the present licensing system does, at best, a mediocre job of preventing poor drivers from operating on the road, and does zilch for stopping aggressive drivers. You said it yourself: there are ******** using all kinds of transportation, and you think that an easily fooled licensing system that would inconvenience every rider is going to filter out those ********?

Not in the least, I'd be willing to bet that in all the cases you presented there was some active disobedience of the law by the cyclist. The Central Park case, for example, is infamous among cyclsts for having been caused by a jerkwad who thought Central Park trails were a great place to get high-speed sprinter training. Do you think he's going to suddenly become a law abiding citizen after you spend tons of cash discouraging regular cyclists from cycling? This guy was the equilvelant of a street racer, who also likely passed the state tests.

You claim that the costs of a scheme that neither exists nor has been costed or even outlined (the UK scheme I took part in was run by a charity for free for example) will outway the also uncited benefits of untrained cyclists accessing the roads. Period, no discussion.
Click to expand...

If you want to implement something it is up to you to show that there will be a benefit to those being affected. All I know is that introducing a paperwork and testing system costs money (you cannot expect a state licensing system to run on charity), and that needs to be paid for. If the cost matched that of a car fee it would be grossly unfair.

I was trying to have a sensible discussion that acknowledged both sides of the argument reasonably, car drivers are a bigger risk to cyclists than cyclists are to pedestrians, but some cyclists are also a risk to themselves, training can help mitigate bottom a degree. Obviously you're not and 'm not interested I arguing for the sake of arguing so I'm out, I don't have enough of a stake in the argument to care and I'm happy for my previous posts to stand as to whether my position is reasonable.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing: 99 times out of 100 when I see the 'cyclists should be licensed and have to get insurance; statement.... I see it it comes from someone who doesn't actually want a licensing system - they just want bikes off the road and out of the way of their car. The licensing is just an excuse and a tool for them. When you start making some very weak arguments (and they are weak, essentially coming down to 'well I did it' and 'some bikers are bad, m'kay?') you are standing in the same field that those people are.

Here's another fact for you: In NYC (and by extension most cities) as cycling rates increased the number of bike-pedestrian accidents actually decreased. Its almost as if cyclists behave better when they aren't a marginalized minority on the road. But you want to throw a monkey wrench into that kind of progress.
.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Aepervius- http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/cy...an-motorists-claims-transport-minister/018723

i disagree with Lord Ahmad's claim but these figures are claimed by the cycling journalist in opposition to it.

The UK maximum speed limit on any road including motorways is 70mph, many dual carriageways have this limit as well, our National speed limit on single lane roads, which includes many country roads is only 10mph less, cyclists are allowed on these so your statement that cyclists aren't on "high speed road" is incorrect I'm afraid. Cyclists might even be safer on the hard shoulder of motorways than on many 60mph country roads!
Click to expand...

I do not care what bikebiz says i want a gov citation. Or at least a research paper. The number could be higher , lower, or a low 5 year ir a high 5 who knows. With official citation or research you can check
That. The bikebiz number is worthless.

You sidestepped that bike are allowed on some high speedriad but not the highest like motorway. And by the way bike are forbbiden here on any road speed above 90 kmh, i am surprised it aint the same in uk. But even then th e crushing majority of bike will be on low speed riad r inner city. So my kip on speed is justified.

Eta oh and your own cite deso not tell cyclist were responsible it only tells pedestrian were killed when they crossed the road and again your on cite car (which should never go over the pedestrian area, contrary to cyclist which in some area are authorized or mandated to sgare with pedestrian) killed 10 time more pede strian than cyclist on those area. Car which have license plate AND driver ed. That does not change my mind that without cite numb.er are worthless, but the link does noT help your argument either.
 
Last edited:
fagin said:
Your health insurance sounds a bit ****. Again, from a UK perspective (for my sins I work in insurance), it would be up to the policyholder's insurers to sort the policyholder out and then recover from the TP insurer.
Then again, the NHS would have sorted out most of the bills anyway.
Click to expand...
The car driver's insurance lawyer suggested the same, but of course the only way I could sort this out would be by suing my own insurance carrier also.
 
fagin said:
Bummer. Hope there's nothing too bad still.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm walking and talking and getting used to double vision and nerve damage, and forgetting names, and all in all pretty well off. After a bit of a vacation I can drive again, and even go up a ladder if I'm careful, and I only fall down every once in a blue moon now. I get to beef about it, but...the other day I was at the checkout counter of the local food store, commiserating with the cashier who had slight nerve damage from a cycle accident, and casually noted that there's always someone worse off, when up behind me comes a bald woman looking for a particular sorbet because it's the only thing she can stomach, with the simple comment..."yeah."
 
Here's another reason why the tax sucks: It's going to hit little bike shops more than Target or Wal-Mart. Why? Because the latter sell a lot of cheap bikes--the Huffy-type crap. The bike shops, on the other hand, offer a higher-end product, but at a higher cost (and probably a higher margin)
 
Brainster said:
Here's another reason why the tax sucks: It's going to hit little bike shops more than Target or Wal-Mart. Why? Because the latter sell a lot of cheap bikes--the Huffy-type crap. The bike shops, on the other hand, offer a higher-end product, but at a higher cost (and probably a higher margin)
Click to expand...

I just received a packet of goodies from Chain Reaction Cycles in the UK. Orders above 50 bucks are shipped free, no VAT and no State sales tax and for an extra 5 bucks they'll send it DHL!


Bwaahahahahahaha!
 
Brainster said:
Here's another reason why the tax sucks: It's going to hit little bike shops more than Target or Wal-Mart. Why? Because the latter sell a lot of cheap bikes--the Huffy-type crap. The bike shops, on the other hand, offer a higher-end product, but at a higher cost (and probably a higher margin)
Click to expand...
A Fred buying a $3000 carbon roadie at a boutique shop isn't going to notice a $15 infrastructure surcharge.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
 
In case you're wondering why I posted that, here's an excerpt from the Australian Road Rules.

Rule 248 - No riding across a road on a crossing

(1) The rider of a bicycle must not ride across a road, or part of
a road, on a children’s crossing or pedestrian crossing.
Offence provision.

Note Children’s crossing is defined in rule 80, and pedestrian crossing
is defined in rule 81.

(2) The rider of a bicycle must not ride across a road, or part of
a road, on a marked foot crossing, unless there are bicycle
crossing lights at the crossing showing a green bicycle
crossing light.

Offence provision.
Click to expand...
It is very common for bike paths to cross roads at pedestrian crossings, cyclists are required to dismount and wheel their bicycle across the road.

For this reason, many commuter cyclists (myself included) ride on the road, and don't use the paths.

Imagine how much longer your commute to work would take, if you were required to get out of the car, and push it across every intersection.

(And no, they don't all have bicycle crossing lights, those things are as rare as hen's teeth)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom