
Should Bikes Be Treated Like Cars? - terpua
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/cycle-law-should-bikes-be-treated-like-cars/
======
RyanMcGreal
That's a _terrible_ idea, for both principled and pragmatic reasons.

Bicycles are the most energy efficient vehicles ever invented, getting
approximately 1,400 mpg equivalent in fuel economy. They produce no emissions
(other than wear on tires and brake pads) at the tailpipe. They cause minimal
wear and tear on roads. They take up much less space than cars, both when
traveling and when parked. Regular cycling is associated with several extra
years in life expectancy, reducing lifetime medical costs for cyclists.

Also, the cost or providing cycling infrastructure is only a tiny fraction of
the cost of providing automobile infrastructure. You can construct a
permanent, continuous cycling network in a city for about what the city's road
system costs in maintenance for one year.

In short, bicycles produce almost no negative externalities and significant
positive externalities, so it makes no sense to punish people for cycling with
financial or regulatory barriers.

Further, as the rate of cycling goes up, the rate of cycling casualties goes
down, and the overall casualty risk for cyclists is lower than for motorists;
so it is in everyone's pragmatic interest to encourage as much cycling as
possible.

~~~
stcredzero
Also, bikes aren't cars. Pretending that they are doesn't increase safety. It
decreases it!

------
AndrewWarner
How about a tax on pedestrians?

Shouldn't they be required to buy insurance too?

Anyone want to require registrations of all sneakers?

------
redcap
I'm in Japan at the moment and bikes are already fairly strictly controlled.
You have to register it with the authorities when you buy it and there are
several places near major train stations where you are specifically not
allowed to park your bike.

In addition, while there are often bikes lying around the place, you can get
stopped by the police to show that the bike you're riding belongs to you.

With the inner city crowding you get in places such as Tokyo this should come
as no surprise. However, there isn't much of a bike infrastructure - you have
to share the same narrow roads that cars and pedestrians take.

~~~
barrkel
I believe bike infrastructure, in terms of road markings, can increase danger
to cyclists in many situations.

Navigating junctions from bike lanes is often inconvenient, leading practiced
cyclists to leave them for the main road, but the lanes increase car drivers'
perceived sense of ownership of the road, and they can end up more aggressive
towards cyclists.

With respect to red lights: my (albeit short) experience cycling in California
has been strongly affected by so-called smart lights, which have vehicle
detectors built into the junction approach roads and help control signaling.
The trouble is, bikes usually don't have enough metallic mass to affect these
detectors, and early on in my CA biking career I once spent about 15 minutes
in the middle of the road vainly waiting for a red light to turn green.

It never did.

~~~
lucumo
Those are the markings of a society that hasn't (yet?) adapted to cycling and
cyclists. Here in The Netherlands cycling lanes makes drivers more aware of
the fact that cyclists can use the road. The lanes are done in red asphalt,
while the normal road is done in black. Drivers tend to steer clear of the
lanes.

As for the "smart lights", they are pretty much the norm here for all
intersections. Cyclists usually have a button which they can press.

~~~
barrkel
When one is cycling along the road and needs to turn left (assuming right-hand
driving), one will want to be near the middle of the road, so that when the
way becomes clear, there isn't multiple lanes of traffic to cross. If the
junction is also controlled by traffic lights, where is the button they must
press? Is it in the road itself?

Or is it another one of those situations where cyclists can't go the same
route that cars do, and must cross using multiple signals, possibly taking
several minutes?

------
lutorm
The taxation idea doesn't hold water when you look at it in detail. I can't
remember the reference now, but the point was made that because most road
building is funded by sources that have nothing to do with cars (local taxes,
etc) non-drivers are actually _subsidizing_ drivers. Cyclists, along with
pedestrians, actually pay more than their fair share of the cost, given that
they cause practically no road wear and a minimum of the construction costs.

------
christofd
I'm just about ready to release a rant about ignorant, car-culture addicted
North-Americans that just can't get used to anything other than suburbs,
drive-thrus and SUV's (I believe you can even get married in a car in the U.S.
etc.).

Oh wow, a bicycle: BIG DEAL. People in Europe just use em everyday. No, you
don't need insurance, or taxes or any special regulations to deal with
bicycles. Just USE EM.

It's almost like watching somebody seeing chop-sticks for the first time...
Oh, they could be dangerous, don't swallow them, we need warning signs on them
to prevent injuries etc. etc.

------
philwelch
Bikes should be treated like cars in one way: there should be a formula for
the amount of wear and tear a vehicle makes on a road surface that is used to
levy an annual tax on all vehicle owners. But if the tax is below a certain
floor, no tax is due. Which would end up meaning, in practice, that motor
vehicles are taxed, and heavier motor vehicles are taxed more heavily, but
bicycles pay no tax.

