cyccommute 

And it is up to the bicyclist to ALSO operate their vehicle in a responsible manner. If a motorist has to swerve to avoid a wrong way cyclists and is involved in an accident, the fault is with the cyclist. Would you say that a motorist swerving to avoid a wrongway motorist would be at fault in the event of an accident?

Do you not know how insurance works? You don't have insurance on your motor vehicle for yourself...at least mostly. You carry insurance to pay for any damages you might do to others.

Liability insurance, which we are required to carry, is there to pay for damage you cause to other roadway users. We, the People AKA "government" AKA "Big Brother", have recognized the damage that cars can do and have determined that we can't let everyone self-insure because that's no insurance at all. People without insurance can skip out on their responsibility to someone injured, whether that injury is bodily or property. Or they can end up bankrupt because they have to pay for that other person's injuries. Yes, insurance companies make money on your premium. But if you have to use it, it saves you money.

Municipalities get zero from any insurance you or I or anyone else pays.

I agree, however, that carrying insurance on a bicycle is a fools errand. We usually can't do enough damage to others to make carrying insurance worthwhile. No insurance company will issue a policy on bicycles because the risk is so low that the premium would also not be worth collecting and, in actuality, would cost more to collect than they would every make any money on.

On the other hand, if you are a homeowner or have renter's insurance, you are likely covered against any liability resulting from injuring another in a bicycle accident. It's part of the personal liability covered in homeowner's insurance.

cyccommute 

I'VE ACTUALLY HAD TO DEAL WITH AN INSURANCE COMPANY MANY TIMES!!!! Can you quit with the "ALL CAPS!"? They aren't necessary to make your point.

I've had roofs replaced, my premium didn't go up. I've had several bicycle stolen (4 so far) and my premiums didn't go up. I have had automobile premiums rise after having an accident but that's to be expected because I've demonstrated that I'm a higher risk but, generally speaking, my premiums have gone down over the years.

Romyan

What now?? Bike license plates?

prathmann

That used to be quite common. Back in the '50s my bike's rear fender was adorned with a series of annual license 'plate' stickers issued by the local police department. Nominally they were required but I'm not sure how much enforcement there was. Later they dropped them as not being cost effective.

cyccommute 

Yes, there are lots of people...mostly old geezers who had them on their bikes when they were kids...who suggest these all the time. They think that there a gold mine out there but never realize that registration and licenses for bicycles are money losing propositions. When you point that out to them, they say to just raise the fees on bicycles so that they are profitable without realizing the irony that that is an argument that can be used for car registrations.

nycphotography

Is it mathematically impossible for insurance to ever be a good investment.

awesomeame

I'm all for licensing. As the OP mentioned, I too live in Toronto. We have this thing here called "bikeshare." Basically there are bike stations with bikes you can rent and ride around on. The stations are located across the city. The bikes are big, heavy, slow, etc. Junkers. And people who ride them are generally new riders, or people who ride a few times a year. These people don't know how to ride at all, don't check blind spots, make turns without signalling or sudden turns without looking. Very dangerous for people going double/triple their speed and been riding 30+yrs. I agree licensing would be hard to enforce, but with systems like bikeshare they would have to scan their licence before the machine releases the bike, so it would work in that case. 5 new bike stations now in my area of the city and the traffic on the trails has definitely increased over the past two weeks. Not even fun riding on weekends anymore, I just ride the streets forget the trails

Matt

nycphotography

In your case, a bikeshare license (required by, and issued by, and managed by the bikeshare system) would be a good idea... just to prove they were forced to listen to a basic safety spiel about riding a straight line, looking around them, and not making erratic moves, and signed some form acknowledging that they understood and agreed with those basic rules. Based on an average 90-100 IQ, I'd say like 5 very simple points at max, because they simply lack the capacity to absorb more info in a 15 minute session.

Not saying you have any chance of getting them to implement one, just that it would be a good idea from a telling the idiots to please not be idiots point of view.

However in the more general sense, bike licensing is just FAIL. Never gonna be effective, so never gonna happen in any meaningful way.

I-Like-To-Bike

Sure licensing would be a "good idea", right right up there with the "good idea" of mandating wearing a helmet to ride a bikeshare bike. A "good idea" to guarantee program failure.

General Geoff

For-profit insurance companies don't make money by shelling out more in claims than the revenue they receive in premiums. Just wanted to point this out.

nycphotography

Exactly.

Premiums -
(Claims + Agent Commissions + Executive, Management, Administrative and all other Corporate Drones Payroll + that massive high rise in downtown Columbus)
= Profit

be sure to include the cost of the agents, management, drones, trophy building, AND profit when considering buying insurance.

nycphotography

I did say there was zero chance of getting them to implement it

scott967

My insurance is through mutual benefit associations. For-profit insurers have to compete with these, so aren't able to just spend money willy-nilly. And your calculation neglects the size of the risk pool, and how that is invested.

scott s.

sdmc530

there has been more talk of a wheel tax or license on bicycles everywhere to help pay for failing roads. SAD!


Cuz were the one destroying all the roads

nycphotography

True. And I left out the billions spent on advertising too.

Bmach

I this ever comes about, we as cyclists should then demand that every single road defect the affects a bicycle should be fixed, we should demand that every road be swept and all debris removed weekly. We should demand bike lanes and anything else that is now lacking.

nycphotography

Is this the level of service you get with your driver's license? No, I thought not.

If this ever comes to pass we'll all end up bending over and taking it like we end up bending over and taking every other government program that's "here to help".

Bmach

Maybe you will but I won't.

nycphotography

Yes you will. You aren't really going to go all Randy Weaver over a bike license.

IamAlan

Nope.

DXchulo

I'm in the minority, but I'm fine with it. One less thing for drivers to whine about. Maybe we could educate some salmon in the process. Probably not.


Unfortunately, I do feel like the money would end up being wasted.

WNCGoater

That isn't going to stop drivers from whining. I hear it all the time "bicyclists shouldn't be on the road, They should be on a trail where they belong, They are a traffic hazard and cause traffic back-ups, they're supposed to move over for drivers, blah, blah" This is usually followed by, "They should be taxed and licensed."

So I point out...
"They already pay all the same taxes YOU pay and pretty much most have a license already. And about that tax, I ride a relatively low-cost bicycle at around $1200. Some cyclists ride bikes that cost $10k, if you think a tax will remove them from the road, it won't, nor will it thin the herd. All a tax will do is cause those who ride a bike because they cannot afford other transportation to suffer. But lets say they DO tax cyclists, will you then be content with the occasional delay? If you get P***ed off because you're behind a cyclist on the road, will you be all happy and content behind one that paid a tax for no other reason than they ride a bike?" I ask, "Someone should be taxed for riding a bike?" "Why?, explain that to me." Also, many do not realize bicycles are classified as vehicles and have a right to the lane in all 50 states. I tell them, "that's the law, don't like the law then write your state representative. But there is NO law that gives someone in a motorized vehicle precedence or right of way over a bicycle." "Your life and your time is no more important than their time and their life." "What makes you think you have priority?"

They usually don't have much of an argument after that. The "tax and license" argument is nothing more than justification for their whining.
Go ahead and tax or not, they'll still whine. Drivers whine about cyclists because they're out there, not because they aren't paying some tax or have some bike "license" in their pocket. They whine because they feel cyclists are in their way and a delay to them. It's the same reason they speed up at a yellow light and blow through the intersection on red, they're impatient, self-centered and selfish and don't give a fat rip about anyone else.
^edit^ That's a little unfair. I do not mean to include all motorists, mostly those who are doing the whining. Most motorists in my area are pretty considerate and tolerant of cyclists and I've had little negative interactions with any.


When a driver comes up behind me, I start counting the delay. Most slow down and pass, no delay. Those who have to wait for oncoming traffic? Average delay is 15-20 seconds. Rare is anyone delayed from passing me more than 30 seconds and that is typically because they are hesitant to pass until they are comfortable, with a loooong clear line of sight for oncoming traffic. I've tried this little experiment multiple times and it's the same every time. I realize it's hardly scientific and specific to my areas. Differing areas would likely produce different results. Dunno.

Anyway, I digress...

Taxes and licenses will do little IMO to change drivers perception and hatred of cyclists on the road. They'll still be whining. What we can all do is not act like jerks while cycling.

And yes, I agree, the money would most assuredly be wasted. I guarantee it would likely not be spent on bike lanes!

cyccommute 

I agree with some of what you've said but not all.

I agree that motorists would just find something more whine about. It's not the cyclists that are keeping them from driving down their fantasy miles and miles of empty road but the other motorists. They just don't see it that way.

Another part of the problem is that motorists are under the mistaken impression that they pay for all the roads, when, in fact, they pay for only a small portion of road maintenance and building. In my state, gasoline and registration pay for about 40% of the cost. The rest comes out of the general fund which is sales and income tax. Since I'm a taxpayer (and a driver as well as a cyclist), the 60% that is diverted from higher education, social services, K-12 education, public transit, etc. to subsidize motorists, I consider that I have already paid my "fair share". But motorists just won't see it that way.

I don't agree that the money would be wasted. Transportation departments are generally lean and efficient. My Dad worked for the CDOT for 25+ years and they were damned good at squeezing snot out of Lincoln's nose. That's the case with most state level governments.