Cyclist doesn't want to pay for damages in accident

[blitz]

Originally posted by Feruk
Well that's stupid. Doesn't pay child support... can't drive to work to make money for child support.

Wasn't paying child support before, so might as well make the fuckers life a little more miserable.

[lasimmon]

In Vancouver if you get caught not paying for transit too many times they take away your drivers license

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Moonracer
Vehicle registration and driver licensing fees, on the other hand, are collected by the province and spent on provincial highways; none of it comes to the city.

What a bunch of bullshit. It does come back to the city, not just directly, but from money the provincial gov gives to the cities for infrastructure work.

Basically, your post is just for biking. Jeebus h...

[Moonracer]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


What a bunch of bullshit. It does come back to the city, not just directly, but from money the provincial gov gives to the cities for infrastructure work.

Basically, your post is just for biking. Jeebus h...

Well ya that's what we are talking about here no....cyclists....

[Black Gts]

Originally posted by a social dsease


Do you have any knowledge of how tax dollars are actually collected and spent? From the sounds of your post, you are advocating a user pay system. On the same token one might ask:

Why should I pay taxes for hospitals if I don't get sick very often?
Why should I pay taxes for schools if I don't have kids?
Why should I pay taxes for any road that I don't frequently drive on?
Why should I pay taxes for firefighters if my house has never caught on fire?
etc etc etc...

Is that really a world you want to live in? And of course cyclists pay taxes too. Do you think every cyclist is a homeless squatter who lives in a cardboard box and doesn't buy anything or make any taxable income? And don't even get me started on your comment on insurance......

?? The insurance comment is exactly the same as your examples. And yes most cyclists are granola eating freemen on the land imo. Mostly kidding

[Gman.45]

At first I thought "wtf, the guy was on a bike, might not even have a D.L., and sure won't have PLPD on his bike", but after thinking for 2 seconds, if the driver of a car was to hit a guy on a bike and be at fault, his insurance would have to pay to replace/repair the bike, and any other damages awarded in terms of injury or whatever.

So, in fairness, the bike rider should have to reciprocate if the roles are reversed.

The only problem I see is that a cyclist isn't required to have insurance, a drivers license, or even a job. What if it was a 14 year old orphan kid that was on the bike? How does an insurance company pursue damages then, with no parents to sue, and no DL to suspend, or wages to garnish?

There should be some sort of insurance system for cyclists if they are going to be interacting with vehicles, and driving on the roads motorists are using. Does anyone else feel the same? Some sort of licensing/insurance for cyclists as well?

[spikerS]

Originally posted by Moonracer
Taken from the "Bike Calgary" website. This explains why licensing is never gets implemented.

*snip*

What a big pile of steaming bullshit.

I would put forth that, as mentioned before, the infrastructure is already in place to start registration of bicycles, and making it mandatory for cyclists to carry insurance while in use on public property (not just roads). Now, if a cyclist is covered under a home policy, proof of that is all that is required. Or, if there is no home owner's policy, a separate policy could be purchased.

I agree whole heatedly that there needs to be some way of identifying a cyclist, and a plate would do that, just as it does for cars.

Cyclists like to clamor about sharing the roads, and I seem to recall the law stating that cyclists must follow the same rules of the road that a motor vehicle would. Cyclists are the biggest and loudest group when it comes to sharing the road and cyclists rights. Why do they have a problem with it now when it comes to being responsible and accountable?

[Khyron]

Because a person driving a CAR has potential to be a risk or a menace to society. A person with a firearm has the potential to be a risk or menace to society. Ie, they can kill multiple people with relative ease.

A cyclist does not pose a threat to anyone other than themselves for the most part. Auto insurance is expensive because of public liability which again isn't an issue. Damage from cyclists wouldn't even be a fraction of a fraction of the damages paid out even just for basic vandalism let alone looking at the multi-billions in total payouts.

Get your rifle registry sorted out before you start worrying about bikes and skateboards and roller-blades.

[Moonracer]

Originally posted by spikerS


What a big pile of steaming bullshit.

I would put forth that, as mentioned before, the infrastructure is already in place to start registration of bicycles, and making it mandatory for cyclists to carry insurance while in use on public property (not just roads). Now, if a cyclist is covered under a home policy, proof of that is all that is required. Or, if there is no home owner's policy, a separate policy could be purchased.

I agree whole heatedly that there needs to be some way of identifying a cyclist, and a plate would do that, just as it does for cars.

Cyclists like to clamor about sharing the roads, and I seem to recall the law stating that cyclists must follow the same rules of the road that a motor vehicle would. Cyclists are the biggest and loudest group when it comes to sharing the road and cyclists rights. Why do they have a problem with it now when it comes to being responsible and accountable?

Well I dunno what to tell ya man but it hasn't been implemented anywhere else that I know of either.

As for being responsible and accountable, remember not to think of ALL cyclists as douschebags. Just like any other form of transportation there are good and bad. Whenever one cyclist douschebag does something stupid we all end up paying for it.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Khyron
Because a person driving a CAR has potential to be a risk or a menace to society. A person with a firearm has the potential to be a risk or menace to society. Ie, they can kill multiple people with relative ease.

A cyclist does not pose a threat to anyone other than themselves for the most part.

CJ disagrees.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by Khyron


Get your rifle registry sorted out before you start worrying about bikes and skateboards and roller-blades.

You mean the one that was scrapped and the courts decided it actually did nothing to improve safety?

[spikerS]

Originally posted by Moonracer


Well I dunno what to tell ya man but it hasn't been implemented anywhere else that I know of either.

As for being responsible and accountable, remember not to think of ALL cyclists as douschebags. Just like any other form of transportation there are good and bad. Whenever one cyclist douschebag does something stupid we all end up paying for it.

I am not labeling anyone as a douchebag. What I am saying is that cyclists that are given the same rights as a motor vehicle on a public motorway should be held to the same standards, and not have exemptions. And that goes for ALL cyclists on ANY public property. Kids included riding to the park. Should be mandatory, just like helmets.

Originally posted by Khyron
Because a person driving a CAR has potential to be a risk or a menace to society. A person with a firearm has the potential to be a risk or menace to society. Ie, they can kill multiple people with relative ease.

A cyclist does not pose a threat to anyone other than themselves for the most part. Auto insurance is expensive because of public liability which again isn't an issue. Damage from cyclists wouldn't even be a fraction of a fraction of the damages paid out even just for basic vandalism let alone looking at the multi-billions in total payouts.

Get your rifle registry sorted out before you start worrying about bikes and skateboards and roller-blades.

You should share your complete ignorance with the family of this man killed by a cyclist even as recently as Last October...Sure in this case the man may not have paid attention, but that won't always be the case. People being killed by cyclists is not a new thing, or even rare... This was just the first hit in google.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...list-1.2787886

and then there is this article that claims that there are almost as many injuries to pedestrians caused by cyclists as caused by motor vehicles per KM travelled...

http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/570...destrians-cars

[Moonracer]

Originally posted by spikerS
[B]

I am not labeling anyone as a douchebag. What I am saying is that cyclists that are given the same rights as a motor vehicle on a public motorway should be held to the same standards, and not have exemptions. And that goes for ALL cyclists on ANY public property. Kids included riding to the park. Should be mandatory, just like helmets.

Ok point taken and FYI helmets are not mandatory.

[a social dsease]

Originally posted by spikerS


I am not labeling anyone as a douchebag. What I am saying is that cyclists that are given the same rights as a motor vehicle on a public motorway should be held to the same standards, and not have exemptions. And that goes for ALL cyclists on ANY public property. Kids included riding to the park. Should be mandatory, just like helmets.




You should share your complete ignorance with the family of this man killed by a cyclist even as recently as Last October...Sure in this case the man may not have paid attention, but that won't always be the case. People being killed by cyclists is not a new thing, or even rare... This was just the first hit in google.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...list-1.2787886

and then there is this article that claims that there are almost as many injuries to pedestrians caused by cyclists as caused by motor vehicles per KM travelled...

http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/570...destrians-cars

Just to be clear, your argument is that cyclists are:
1) striking and injuring pedestrians, and
2) leaving the scene without identifying themselves,
with such frequency that:
3) all cyclists (including children and leisure cyclists) should have plates attached to their bicycles so in the event this happens, bystanders can identify and report them?

[spikerS]

Originally posted by a social dsease


Just to be clear, your argument is that cyclists are:
1) striking and injuring pedestrians, and
2) leaving the scene without identifying themselves,
with such frequency that:
3) all cyclists (including children and leisure cyclists) should have plates attached to their bicycles so in the event this happens, bystanders can identify and report them?

No, but nice try in trying to twist my words.

What I am saying is that if cyclists are championing equal rights and access to public streets and their uses, they have to adhere to the same rules and regulations as a motor vehicle. That includes licencing (for on road activities), registration and insurance, so that in the event of an "event", parties involved may be identified, and safer, and more responsible practices may be adopted.

[msommers]

Does anywhere else in the world use a bike licensing system? I've honestly never heard of one before. And given how popular bikes are in Asia and Europe, it seems strange that they don't have this system but us in Calgary where bikes aren't really all that common, relatively, feel the need for an insurance and licensing system?

What if I own a mountain bike and it never sees public roads? What if a child's bike is only driven on bike pathways because driving on roads are too dangerous?

The only people who this might be suitable for are bike couriers while on company time.

[Moonracer]

Originally posted by msommers

The only people who this might be suitable for are bike couriers while on company time.

Yup, they already do actually

[codetrap]

Originally posted by spikerS
What I am saying is that cyclists that are given the same rights as a motor vehicle on a public motorway should be held to the same standards, and not have exemptions. And that goes for ALL cyclists on ANY public property. Kids included riding to the park. Should be mandatory, just like helmets

You should share your complete ignorance with the family of this man killed by a cyclist even as recently as Last October ...Sure in this case the man may not have paid attention, but that won't always be the case. People being killed by cyclists is not a new thing, or even rare...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...list-1.2787886

and then there is this article that claims that there are almost as many injuries to pedestrians caused by cyclists as caused by motor vehicles per KM travelled...

http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/570...destrians-cars

Originally posted by a social dsease
Just to be clear, your argument is that cyclists are:
1) striking and injuring pedestrians, and
2) leaving the scene without identifying themselves, with such frequency that:
3) all cyclists (including children and leisure cyclists) should have plates attached to their bicycles so in the event this happens, bystanders can identify and report them?

Originally posted by spikerS
No, but nice try in trying to twist my words.

What I am saying is that if cyclists are championing equal rights and access to public streets and their uses, they have to adhere to the same rules and regulations as a motor vehicle. That includes licensing (for on road activities), registration and insurance, so that in the event of an "event", parties involved may be identified, and safer, and more responsible practices may be adopted.

I think social disease nailed your points exactly bud.

I don't agree that recreational cyclists should have plates. I can't see that system possibly working well, since there's nothing to tie the cyclist to the plate. What form of ID are you going to use for your kid's bike? How are you going to prove it's actually your bike you're registering? Or prevent kids from swapping plates? There's no standard serialization on bikes. I have two bikes from the same manufacturer, and one doesn't have a serial on it at all. Just a couple of name stickers. What penalties are you going to put in place for when kids get tired of being scraped by a plate so they tear it off?

Also, I see the constant argument that the "infrastructure" is already there with the registries. Well, it's not. There is no way that the existing registry database can accommodate the registration of bicycles to plates. Sure, it may seem similar, but it's vastly different. Any registry agent can probably attest to that. The only infrastructure that exists is the registry office itself. All the computer systems etc would have to be created. I also can't imagine the privacy concerns that may pop up in relation to child information.

We only have to look at the gun registry to see how well government handles such things... and I would say it's a safe bet there's more bikes than guns out there.

Sorry man, I think you're out to lunch on this one...

[blitz]

Originally posted by Moonracer


Yup, they already do actually

They're the worst fucking cyclists in the city and it doesn't seem like their license plates have done any good.

I'm a fan of accountability for ones actions, but I'm also a huge fan of limiting government spending on problems that really don't exist.

[Disoblige]

Originally posted by Moonracer

Ok point taken and FYI helmets are not mandatory.

Alberta TSA states you only need a helmet if you're under 18.

I don't support the idea of registration and insurance required for a bicycle, especially if it was for leisure riding. Sounds ridiculous.