Italian Politics

[Josquius]

I think it's a good thing.
It's going to increase safety on the roads and make them a bit more conscious.

Cyclists are far more likely to be the victims of accidents than those causing them. Especially if you look at fatal accidents.

Safety isn't the intent of such legislation. Its a transparent fig leaf to try and excuse a naked part of the whole anti-woke push. Trying to put friction in the way of people cycling to help their intent of rolling it back and avoiding anything that impedes motorists in the slightest.

The smaller one is always going to be the victim of the bigger one, that's a given, due tot he mass.

I just think that if cyclists wants to use roads, they should share a little part of the costs and be conscious of their own risks too.  They often are really dangerous to themselves, and to pedestrians.  Sometimes, they create grave injuries to car drivers, but it's the exception.

Which is why the smaller one should be protected rather than blamed.
The amount of damage bikes cause to roads is really negliable next to cars. Not to mention that most cyclists are drivers too and already paying for the roads there- by getting them to take more journeys on bikes you're taking the same money whilst needing to spend less on maintenance.
More people cycling is desirable for everyone, no matter whether you ever ride a bike or not. If road safety was the aim there's far more sensible ways to do this than putting red tape in the way of people cycling.

[viper37]

Which is why the smaller one should be protected rather than blamed.
The amount of damage bikes cause to roads is really negliable next to cars. Not to mention that most cyclists are drivers too and already paying for the roads there- by getting them to take more journeys on bikes you're taking the same money whilst needing to spend less on maintenance.
More people cycling is desirable for everyone, no matter whether you ever ride a bike or not. If road safety was the aim there's far more sensible ways to do this than putting red tape in the way of people cycling.

It's not a question of damage, it's a question of use.  They use the roads, they pay to use it.

You don't pay as a user, you pay as a vehicle.  Otherwise, motorcyclysts and ATV drivers wouldn't pay for their machines, and if it was a simple question of damage to the roard, motorcyclists would be paying 10x less what they pay now and heavy weights would pay 10x more.

More cycling is desirable, but it has to be done safely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ9ZDLHgMxk

Next in line, these idiots:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL4TGGURZbQ

[Josquius]

It's not a question of damage, it's a question of use.  They use the roads, they pay to use it.

Thats insane. Its absolutely a question of damage. If roads didn't need maintenance there'd be no tax to cover road maintenance.
Pedestrians use roads too. Why is there no walking tax?

You don't pay as a user, you pay as a vehicle.  Otherwise, motorcyclysts and ATV drivers wouldn't pay for their machines, and if it was a simple question of damage to the roard, motorcyclists would be paying 10x less what they pay now and heavy weights would pay 10x more.

This is true (except on motorbikes, I'm not sure there). A logic that is gaining recognition and there is a push to reform laws more in this way. Certainly already you do pay drastically more for bigger engines.

More cycling is desirable, but it has to be done safely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ9ZDLHgMxk

Oh wow. In a bit of that he's biking 50 metres from my old flat

I note thats a few years old though. If you go to Lausanne today you'll see solutions in place precisely to  try and stop this happening for real. Not ideal solutions, far better can/should be done, hard barriers in particular rather than just paint, but there's an effort.

https://www.lfm.ch/actualite/suisse/romandie/vaud/lausanne/lausanne-nouveaux-amenagements-pour-les-cyclistes/

[Jacob]

I just think that if cyclists wants to use roads, they should share a little part of the costs and be conscious of their own risks too.

You're in luck then. Cyclists already pay for roads, whether they use them or not. Same as everybody else.

In cities throughout Canada, roads and bike lanes are paid through municipal property taxes. And while drivers pay tax on gasoline, licensing and insurance, none of this revenue pays for city roads. Tax on gas goes to provincial and federal coffers, not the city.

No federal funding goes to highways; the provinces are responsible for financing all highway work. Capital construction funds come from general revenue, not fuel taxes.

[Sheilbh]

Saw this the other day.

https://road.cc/content/news/italian-government-plans-introduce-bike-number-plates-301789

Fascinating how the far right having a massive hard on for hating cycling is such a global phenomena.
Is it just "if the left like it then it must be bad" or is there actually some stupid logic at work?

I think class and place of their supporters is a large part of it.

[viper37]

I just think that if cyclists wants to use roads, they should share a little part of the costs and be conscious of their own risks too.

You're in luck then. Cyclists already pay for roads, whether they use them or not. Same as everybody else.

In cities throughout Canada, roads and bike lanes are paid through municipal property taxes. And while drivers pay tax on gasoline, licensing and insurance, none of this revenue pays for city roads. Tax on gas goes to provincial and federal coffers, not the city.

No federal funding goes to highways; the provinces are responsible for financing all highway work. Capital construction funds come from general revenue, not fuel taxes.

The provincial governments transfer a share of these taxes to the cities so they can take care of their roads. In Quebec, it's called T.E.C.Q..  It's a specific portion of the fuel tax, but I don't know the exact calculations.  There are other government transfer from the GST and PST too.

[viper37]

Thats insane. Its absolutely a question of damage. If roads didn't need maintenance there'd be no tax to cover road maintenance.
Pedestrians use roads too. Why is there no walking tax?

I guess there used to be in the middle ages.  It pays more to go after vehicle owners.
When bikes used to be a couple hundred dollars and used only in the summer it could be still be acceptable, but now, they require dedicated lanes, they need the be open all year long, they are often reckless toward pedestrians when they have shared spaces, and they are also reckless for themselves.

This is true (except on motorbikes, I'm not sure there). A logic that is gaining recognition and there is a push to reform laws more in this way. Certainly already you do pay drastically more for bigger engines.

In Quebec, motorcycles pay according to the danger they pose to themselves.  Sports bikes pay more than than Harley Davidson types, even they have a smaller engine.

More cycling is desirable, but it has to be done safely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ9ZDLHgMxk

Oh wow. In a bit of that he's biking 50 metres from my old flat
I note thats a few years old though. If you go to Lausanne today you'll see solutions in place precisely to  try and stop this happening for real. Not ideal solutions, far better can/should be done, hard barriers in particular rather than just paint, but there's an effort.
https://www.lfm.ch/actualite/suisse/romandie/vaud/lausanne/lausanne-nouveaux-amenagements-pour-les-cyclistes/

It's cool. But if I could find it, I would show a similar video made in Montreal.  And of course, cyclists are offended they are targeted by such messages.

But the point is, if authorities all over the world (there are similar videos made in France too) feel the need to make such advertising campaign, it must be because they feel there is a problem to begin with, and it's not just the drivers who are at fault (they often are, without a doubt, but not always).

[Crazy_Ivan80]

numberplates for bikes aren't exactly unheard of. I remember being required to have on one the bike back when I was a kid. Obviously it's just a way to get more tax, given that Italy needs a lot of money. (I hope the politicians over here don't get wind of it or they might just reintroduce that here too. Given that Belgium is the global taxation-champion)
Making helmets compulsory might not be a bad idea at all.
Not sure about the direction-signals though, where would those go? Though it's probably safer than putting out your arm on a busy street or just going for it.

depending on the rest it may be less crazy than it is made out to be (even taking into account chips on shoulders and so)

[Josquius]

I think class and place of their supporters is a large part of it.

Gammon?
(or would that be pancetta here?)

I guess there used to be in the middle ages.  It pays more to go after vehicle owners.
When bikes used to be a couple hundred dollars and used only in the summer it could be still be acceptable, but now, they require dedicated lanes, they need the be open all year long, they are often reckless toward pedestrians when they have shared spaces, and they are also reckless for themselves.

I thought you were talking about bikes using roads so paying for roads?
If they had their own separate lines then there might be something to talk about in paying for this- though given its a benefit for all to get more people in there rather than in a car it seems misplaced to get them to pay for it.

Cyclists being reckless is quite a myth. You get far more examples of people driving being reckless. And again; as a pedestrian wouldn't you rather these people be on 10kg of metal going 15 kph where they have to look out for their own safety than encased in a 60 kph metal bullet?

In Quebec, motorcycles pay according to the danger they pose to themselves.  Sports bikes pay more than than Harley Davidson types, even they have a smaller engine.

Really?
I know nothing about Canadian vehicle ownership but this sounds like a very strange system that is out of sync with elsewhere.

It's cool. But if I could find it, I would show a similar video made in Montreal.  And of course, cyclists are offended they are targeted by such messages.

But the point is, if authorities all over the world (there are similar videos made in France too) feel the need to make such advertising campaign, it must be because they feel there is a problem to begin with, and it's not just the drivers who are at fault (they often are, without a doubt, but not always).

There's also countless videos about pedestrian safety. Lots of campaigns targeted against kids on how to be outside safely. Kids being outside is still something very desirable we want to see more of.

numberplates for bikes aren't exactly unheard of. I remember being required to have on one the bike back when I was a kid. Obviously it's just a way to get more tax, given that Italy needs a lot of money. (I hope the politicians over here don't get wind of it or they might just reintroduce that here too. Given that Belgium is the global taxation-champion)
Making helmets compulsory might not be a bad idea at all.
Not sure about the direction-signals though, where would those go? Though it's probably safer than putting out your arm on a busy street or just going for it.

depending on the rest it may be less crazy than it is made out to be (even taking into account chips on shoulders and so)

The only place I've encountered it, sort of, is in Japan, the land of bureaucracy. Where every bike has a registration sticker rather than a clearly visible number plate.

The trouble with much of this stuff, indeed with the hate for bikes in general, is its meshing together a bunch of completely different groups- road cyclists racing down country lanes and little kids with their mam walking alongside them on the path to school are completely different things.
I could see the case  for number plates and compulsory safety gear for road cyclists - most of whom already have their bike registered and wear safety gear- but it seems like its just discouraging desirable behaviour for say someone popping to the shop on a regular bike.

As far as tax is concerned, remember there's two sides to that equation, taxation and spending. Reducing car miles reduces the spending side even if it runs the risk of someone deciding they don't need a car altogether and reducing the tax income.

[viper37]

I think class and place of their supporters is a large part of it.

Gammon?
(or would that be pancetta here?)

I guess there used to be in the middle ages.  It pays more to go after vehicle owners.
When bikes used to be a couple hundred dollars and used only in the summer it could be still be acceptable, but now, they require dedicated lanes, they need the be open all year long, they are often reckless toward pedestrians when they have shared spaces, and they are also reckless for themselves.

I thought you were talking about bikes using roads so paying for roads?
If they had their own separate lines then there might be something to talk about in paying for this- though given its a benefit for all to get more people in there rather than in a car it seems misplaced to get them to pay for it.

Cyclists being reckless is quite a myth. You get far more examples of people driving being reckless. And again; as a pedestrian wouldn't you rather these people be on 10kg of metal going 15 kph where they have to look out for their own safety than encased in a 60 kph metal bullet?

In Quebec, motorcycles pay according to the danger they pose to themselves.  Sports bikes pay more than than Harley Davidson types, even they have a smaller engine.

Really?
I know nothing about Canadian vehicle ownership but this sounds like a very strange system that is out of sync with elsewhere.

It's cool. But if I could find it, I would show a similar video made in Montreal.  And of course, cyclists are offended they are targeted by such messages.

But the point is, if authorities all over the world (there are similar videos made in France too) feel the need to make such advertising campaign, it must be because they feel there is a problem to begin with, and it's not just the drivers who are at fault (they often are, without a doubt, but not always).

There's also countless videos about pedestrian safety. Lots of campaigns targeted against kids on how to be outside safely. Kids being outside is still something very desirable we want to see more of.

numberplates for bikes aren't exactly unheard of. I remember being required to have on one the bike back when I was a kid. Obviously it's just a way to get more tax, given that Italy needs a lot of money. (I hope the politicians over here don't get wind of it or they might just reintroduce that here too. Given that Belgium is the global taxation-champion)
Making helmets compulsory might not be a bad idea at all.
Not sure about the direction-signals though, where would those go? Though it's probably safer than putting out your arm on a busy street or just going for it.

depending on the rest it may be less crazy than it is made out to be (even taking into account chips on shoulders and so)

The only place I've encountered it, sort of, is in Japan, the land of bureaucracy. Where every bike has a registration sticker rather than a clearly visible number plate.

The trouble with much of this stuff, indeed with the hate for bikes in general, is its meshing together a bunch of completely different groups- road cyclists racing down country lanes and little kids with their mam walking alongside them on the path to school are completely different things.
I could see the case  for number plates and compulsory safety gear for road cyclists - most of whom already have their bike registered and wear safety gear- but it seems like its just discouraging desirable behaviour for say someone popping to the shop on a regular bike.

As far as tax is concerned, remember there's two sides to that equation, taxation and spending. Reducing car miles reduces the spending side even if it runs the risk of someone deciding they don't need a car altogether and reducing the tax income.

The same people driving a car will often drive a bike too.  They aren't mutually exclusive.

Reckless driving and reckless biking aren't myths, but there are more accidents caused by reckless drivers.  Quebec's stats shows close to a third of accidents caused by cyclists or shared responsibilities.

I'm all in favor of cyclists paying a token fee for using the roads as well as insurance.  In Quebec, every driver has an indemnity insurance provided by the government and as it is now, cyclists will receive indemnities for road accidents but never contribute anything.

We all share the road, we all have our responsibilities.

As for dedicated bike lanes.  Well.  I'm much in favor of cities paying for these with the general funds where they're for summer use, especially when they're for shared use.  But when you start asking cities to open bike lanes for all season, I think cyclists will have to share the costs.

[HVC]

The only point I want to add is that when I see bikers on sidewalks right next to bike lanes I want to push them into traffic. My street has bike lanes. 1 in 10 riders I see still zoom past pedestrians on a busy sidewalk.

[Josquius]

The only point I want to add is that when I see bikers on sidewalks right next to bike lanes I want to push them into traffic. My street has bike lanes. 1 in 10 riders I see still zoom past pedestrians on a busy sidewalk.

Actual bike lanes or just little lines painted on the road alongside 50mph traffic?

If the former then yep. They should be fined.
If the latter then really don't blame them for valuing their safety. This is clearly following the same principles as desire paths.

I think class and place of their supporters is a large part of it.

Gammon?
(or would that be pancetta here?)

I guess there used to be in the middle ages.  It pays more to go after vehicle owners.
When bikes used to be a couple hundred dollars and used only in the summer it could be still be acceptable, but now, they require dedicated lanes, they need the be open all year long, they are often reckless toward pedestrians when they have shared spaces, and they are also reckless for themselves.

I thought you were talking about bikes using roads so paying for roads?
If they had their own separate lines then there might be something to talk about in paying for this- though given its a benefit for all to get more people in there rather than in a car it seems misplaced to get them to pay for it.

Cyclists being reckless is quite a myth. You get far more examples of people driving being reckless. And again; as a pedestrian wouldn't you rather these people be on 10kg of metal going 15 kph where they have to look out for their own safety than encased in a 60 kph metal bullet?

In Quebec, motorcycles pay according to the danger they pose to themselves.  Sports bikes pay more than than Harley Davidson types, even they have a smaller engine.

Really?
I know nothing about Canadian vehicle ownership but this sounds like a very strange system that is out of sync with elsewhere.

It's cool. But if I could find it, I would show a similar video made in Montreal.  And of course, cyclists are offended they are targeted by such messages.

But the point is, if authorities all over the world (there are similar videos made in France too) feel the need to make such advertising campaign, it must be because they feel there is a problem to begin with, and it's not just the drivers who are at fault (they often are, without a doubt, but not always).

There's also countless videos about pedestrian safety. Lots of campaigns targeted against kids on how to be outside safely. Kids being outside is still something very desirable we want to see more of.

numberplates for bikes aren't exactly unheard of. I remember being required to have on one the bike back when I was a kid. Obviously it's just a way to get more tax, given that Italy needs a lot of money. (I hope the politicians over here don't get wind of it or they might just reintroduce that here too. Given that Belgium is the global taxation-champion)
Making helmets compulsory might not be a bad idea at all.
Not sure about the direction-signals though, where would those go? Though it's probably safer than putting out your arm on a busy street or just going for it.

depending on the rest it may be less crazy than it is made out to be (even taking into account chips on shoulders and so)

The only place I've encountered it, sort of, is in Japan, the land of bureaucracy. Where every bike has a registration sticker rather than a clearly visible number plate.

The trouble with much of this stuff, indeed with the hate for bikes in general, is its meshing together a bunch of completely different groups- road cyclists racing down country lanes and little kids with their mam walking alongside them on the path to school are completely different things.
I could see the case  for number plates and compulsory safety gear for road cyclists - most of whom already have their bike registered and wear safety gear- but it seems like its just discouraging desirable behaviour for say someone popping to the shop on a regular bike.

As far as tax is concerned, remember there's two sides to that equation, taxation and spending. Reducing car miles reduces the spending side even if it runs the risk of someone deciding they don't need a car altogether and reducing the tax income.

The same people driving a car will often drive a bike too.  They aren't mutually exclusive.

Reckless driving and reckless biking aren't myths, but there are more accidents caused by reckless drivers.  Quebec's stats shows close to a third of accidents caused by cyclists or shared responsibilities.

I'm all in favor of cyclists paying a token fee for using the roads as well as insurance.  In Quebec, every driver has an indemnity insurance provided by the government and as it is now, cyclists will receive indemnities for road accidents but never contribute anything.

We all share the road, we all have our responsibilities.

As for dedicated bike lanes.  Well.  I'm much in favor of cities paying for these with the general funds where they're for summer use, especially when they're for shared use.  But when you start asking cities to open bike lanes for all season, I think cyclists will have to share the costs.

Cyclists do pay the costs though? As you say they're also usually car owners and they pay taxes.
I've never come across seasonal only bike lanes. Do you mean as in they're not plowed when it snows or literally they switch function?

Where did you read this third of road accidents are caused by bikes? That sounds crazy high for somewhere not known for being particularly cycling heavy. Would need to see a break down there too - I wouldn't doubt these numbers in Holland for instance, but I doubt the death rate tracks (unless its the cyclist dying vs something bigger)

I don't doubt reckless cyclists exist. This is a big reason why segregated bike lanes are desirable. Also as said, getting hit by a bike is much better than being hit by a car.

[Sheilbh]

Gammon?
(or would that be pancetta here?)

Basically.

I  could be wrong but I have a sense that people who rely on their own vehicle (or a vehicle they have an interest in) for their profession are maybe some of the core-est vote of the radical right: truckers, (self-employed) tradesmen, cabbies. I can think of some theory why and it could be bullshit. But I suspect those people are also, broadly, more likely to be anti-cyclist so this is just rewarding the base.

And with place just more rural and reliant on cars tend to vote right - so where public transport/cycling are not options policies for those probably seem like more self-indulgent politics for urbanites. And vice versa.

And, incidentally, it doesn't mean they're wrong - it wasn't about cycling but the complaints and perceptions of unfairness that drove the gilets jaunes seem reasonably well founded (even if they overlapped with jambon).

[HVC]

The only point I want to add is that when I see bikers on sidewalks right next to bike lanes I want to push them into traffic. My street has bike lanes. 1 in 10 riders I see still zoom past pedestrians on a busy sidewalk.

Actual bike lanes or just little lines painted on the road alongside 50mph traffic?

If the former then yep. They should be fined.
If the latter then really don't blame them for valuing their safety. This is clearly following the same principles as desire paths.

Actual lanes, with collapsible safety bollards and all.  Happens most often when cyclists use pedestrian crossing to jump red lights. Not sure if THAT's legal, but all cyclists seem to do it. Most swerve back into the road after the cross. The 1/10 stay on the sidewalk until they hit the next green light. Guess they don't want to hope the curb.


*edit* going to your second last sentence, what about pedestrian safety. If we're going by the rule of escalating vulnerability don't pedestrians take priority and so bike stay on the road? Even if it's just "little lines painted".

I don't drive, I walk or take public transport, and I'll admit I hate the vast majority of cyclists. Kids are cute though.

[Josquius]

The only point I want to add is that when I see bikers on sidewalks right next to bike lanes I want to push them into traffic. My street has bike lanes. 1 in 10 riders I see still zoom past pedestrians on a busy sidewalk.

Actual bike lanes or just little lines painted on the road alongside 50mph traffic?

If the former then yep. They should be fined.
If the latter then really don't blame them for valuing their safety. This is clearly following the same principles as desire paths.

Actual lanes, with collapsible safety bollards and all.  Happens most often when cyclists use pedestrian crossing to jump red lights. Not sure if THAT's legal, but all cyclists seem to do it. Most swerve back into the road after the cross. The 1/10 stay on the sidewalk until they hit the next green light. Guess they don't want to hope the curb.


*edit* going to your second last sentence, what about pedestrian safety. If we're going by the rule of escalating vulnerability don't pedestrians take priority and so bike stay on the road? Even if it's just "little lines painted".

I don't drive, I walk or take public transport, and I'll admit I hate the vast majority of cyclists. Kids are cute though.

Car hits a bike - cyclist has a high chance of serious injury.
Cyclist hits a pedestrian - pedestrian has a low chance of serious injury.

This isn't a black and white thing. It has to be judged very case by case. How dangerous is the road, how crowded the pavement,  how fast the cyclist, etc...
It's a part of why proper bike lanes are important. Make it so each has their place and things do become binary with a clear hierarchy.