So off the back of the QLD decision to enshrine into law that motorists need to give cyclists at least 1 m of space when passing, there have been more than the average number of people nashing their teeth that cyclists don't pay rego. This article is fairly representative of said nashing, but is far from the only example.
I dealt with the registration chestnut a few months ago - here's the link. In short, the article makes the point that rego doesn't come close to covering the costs of roads and road costs are in fact heavily subsidised by _all_ taxpayers (including cyclists) so they have already paid their fare share, most cyclists already own a car & pay rego, and rego won't stop *some* cyclists breaking laws just like car registration doesn't stop *some* drivers breaking laws.
Given the issue was again floating around I again though it was worth linking my original article. I figured I'd specifically address the points raised in this article:
Bikes got in Front of me at the lights! Err, yes, that's called Lane Filtering and it's entirely legal. I think cyclists should be selective about when and where they use it (as I make the point here), but it is indeed legal.
I saw some cyclists break the law! Yawn. Go to your local school at pickup time or a busy intersection near the CBD at peakhour and tell me how many drivers you saw breaking the law.
A cyclist came within 1 meter of me! Well that's how the law works. They are the at risk party, not you.
Cyclists should have to get a licence. Most already do. In the order of 85-90%.
Bikes like cars should be subject to annual checks. Most cyclists I know treat their bikes immaculately and the bikes would fly through any such check. I certainly haven't seen any suggestion that bike maintenance is a cause of any recent incidents. Surely this is simply an attempt to add red tape to the process to make it inconvenient for cyclists.
Cyclists should be fined for road breaches. They already are.
You must wear rego that a driver can easily see. Why exactly? What's the benefit? Try report a driver for speeding or an illegal U-turn down the local police station, and see how you go.
They should pay rego the equivalent of a small car. I'd love to see some sort of logic behind this, but I reckon there's none and they've just pulled a big number out of the air that they feel would deter cyclists. A small car causes far more road wear and tear than a bike. Puts our far more pollution. Takes up a parking space. Even the fee a motorbike pays feels like a big stretch, let alone a small car.
Why don't cyclists use the footpath? Err, unless you are a child, it's illegal to do so.
Funny thing is I'd happily pay a couple of hundred a year to ride on the roads if there was genuinely going to be some respect from drivers and good infrastructure built as a result. Issue being our right to use the roads is already there under law, so I can't see rego working.
