Electric cars

[Admiral Yi]

Hey look a thread hijacked to talk about bikes. 

For it to become a hijack someone (you, hint, hint, wink, nudge) would have to pick up the gauntlet. 

[Jacob]

Why the hell shouldn't electric bike riders have to pay road tax and buy insurance?

For that matter, why shouldn't regular bike riders?

Because:

1. The wear and tear that bikes apply to roads are orders of magnitude less than those applied by cars and trucks (taxes).

2. The vast majority of roads are designed explicitly for cars, even where bikes are permitted. Bikes are forbidden to use a large proportion of roads (freeways et. al.) (taxes).

3. In places where there is significant bike infrastructure, this is not necessarily funded by road taxes but is paid for in other ways (taxes).

4. A significant number of bike riders also own cars and pay road taxes that way. Presumably they shouldn't be paying more for activities that cause less wear and tear on the infrastructure, and which uses a significantly smaller proportion of the road network. The overhead of administering road taxes for the small subset of people who ride bikes but don't drive may be revenue negative (taxes).

5. The potential damage someone can inflict while riding a bike (and thus the potential liability) is orders of magnitude less than that which can be inflicted by someone driving a car or truck (insurance).

6. The damages that can be caused by individual bike rider negligence is already adequately covered by personal liability insurance (insurance).

7. On a societal level bike riding is preferable to car driving where practical, for reasons of population health and environmental impact. Therefore it should be incentivized (taxes).

[Jacob]

All that said, I'd happily pay an additional "bike tax" that went to expanding and maintaining infrastructure specifically geared towards being useful and safe for bicyclists.

I also think that North America could use some sort of traffic standards for bicyclists, and attendant education for bicyclists and other participants in traffics to enhance predictability and safety for all involved parties. I also wouldn't mind some sort of mandatory education to establish this. I think a licensing model is unnecessary since bikes are not heavy machinery in the same way cars are.

[Admiral Yi]

#7 I fully concede

#6 I do not because, in my experience, normal people don't carry personal liability insurance.

The other arguments are about scale.  Of course bike riders should pay less.

[Eddie Teach]

Zuck and Musk don't seem all that much alike in personality.

[Jacob]

#7 I fully concede

#6 I do not because, in my experience, normal people don't carry personal liability insurance.

Fair enough. Still, I expect if we look at the liabilities generated by cyclists they may well be insignificant enough that requiring them to carry insurance makes no more sense that requiring people to carry insurance for operating lawn mowers or chain saws, for riding horses, and so on.

That said, I'm perfectly willing to accept whatever a reasonable analysis of the actual numbers indicate. Conversely, I think given that you accept #7, there has to be a reasonable social benefit (as in, significant liability covered that otherwise would not have been) to implement licensing, since adding bureaucracy to riding bikes will have a discouraging effect.

The other arguments are about scale.  Of course bike riders should pay less.

I think scale is part of it. Another part, I think, is that if bike riders have to pay road tax then road taxes should also be spent explicitly to support bike riding (rather than as a subsidy for car focused infrastructure); and I think a non-trivial number of road-works departments would have to be significantly retooled to be able to do that given how car-centric North American cultures are outside of a few cities. Given that, it may actually be beneficial to tax bike riders if it means their interests are better represented during traffic planning.

[Josquius]

It's harder to feel ike a member of the superior cycling master race if you have to pay taxes or have a licence plate like a peon.

Proper hardcore cyclists don't even use the cycle lane, let alone pay tax on their ride.

Build proper cycle lanes and that problem will go away

In the UK we aligned with EU regulations a while back, so the only allowable electric bicycles are now of the pedelec variety; you must pedal to get the motor assist, which ceases above 15.3 mph.

Any bike that can be propelled solely by an electric motor and controlled by a throttle, would now be classed as an electric motorbike and so would need 'road tax', insurance and rider license provision. 

Huh, didn't know it was an EU law. Thought it was British - I'm certain I heard in the free-EU a lot of places let you get bikes that allow engine alone running?

[viper37]

Fair enough. Still, I expect if we look at the liabilities generated by cyclists they may well be insignificant enough that requiring them to carry insurance makes no more sense that requiring people to carry insurance for operating lawn mowers or chain saws, for riding horses, and so on.

There are a lot more accidents caused by bikes than officially reported, as no stats are collected centrally, unlike for car accidents.

[grumbler]

Fair enough. Still, I expect if we look at the liabilities generated by cyclists they may well be insignificant enough that requiring them to carry insurance makes no more sense that requiring people to carry insurance for operating lawn mowers or chain saws, for riding horses, and so on.

Most people operating lawn mowers and chain saws are doing it on their own property, which is generally covered by insurance as a condition of their mortgage.  People operating them off their own property (e.g professional lawn and tree services) are required to carry insurance.

That said, I'm perfectly willing to accept whatever a reasonable analysis of the actual numbers indicate. Conversely, I think given that you accept #7, there has to be a reasonable social benefit (as in, significant liability covered that otherwise would not have been) to implement licensing, since adding bureaucracy to riding bikes will have a discouraging effect.

I think that this is the more telling argument.  The social good of people eschewing cars for bicycles far outweighs the social costs of allowing bicyclists to ride without liability insurance.

[mongers]

Fair enough. Still, I expect if we look at the liabilities generated by cyclists they may well be insignificant enough that requiring them to carry insurance makes no more sense that requiring people to carry insurance for operating lawn mowers or chain saws, for riding horses, and so on.

There are a lot more accidents caused by involving bikes than officially reported, as no stats are collected centrally, unlike for car accidents.

Yeah none of the four times I've been hit by cars have been reported to the police or recorded as accidents.

[Berkut]

Fair enough. Still, I expect if we look at the liabilities generated by cyclists they may well be insignificant enough that requiring them to carry insurance makes no more sense that requiring people to carry insurance for operating lawn mowers or chain saws, for riding horses, and so on.

There are a lot more accidents caused by involving bikes than officially reported, as no stats are collected centrally, unlike for car accidents.

Yeah none of the four times I've been hit by cars have been reported to the police or recorded as accidents.

You've been hit by a car four times and never reported any of them to the police???

[HVC]

i just want the legal right to hit someone riding a bike on the sidewalk next to a dedicated bike lane.

[mongers]

Fair enough. Still, I expect if we look at the liabilities generated by cyclists they may well be insignificant enough that requiring them to carry insurance makes no more sense that requiring people to carry insurance for operating lawn mowers or chain saws, for riding horses, and so on.

There are a lot more accidents caused by involving bikes than officially reported, as no stats are collected centrally, unlike for car accidents.

Yeah none of the four times I've been hit by cars have been reported to the police or recorded as accidents.

You've been hit by a car four times and never reported any of them to the police???

No witnesses, so zero point.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I've had a Tesla 3 for about 2 years now.  Never had any issues with it.  Only problem was positioning right in the driveway to get good wifi reception for software updates. The driving experience is definitely superior to a gasoline car.  Quiet, great acceleration, responsive.

I'll +1 that. Love driving that car.

[Barrister]

Fair enough. Still, I expect if we look at the liabilities generated by cyclists they may well be insignificant enough that requiring them to carry insurance makes no more sense that requiring people to carry insurance for operating lawn mowers or chain saws, for riding horses, and so on.

There are a lot more accidents caused by involving bikes than officially reported, as no stats are collected centrally, unlike for car accidents.

Yeah none of the four times I've been hit by cars have been reported to the police or recorded as accidents.

You've been hit by a car four times and never reported any of them to the police???

No witnesses, so zero point.

You are a witness.