BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

Yeah, we should also require that all shopping carts, roller-blades, strollers, razor scooters and Radio Flyer wagons be registered, plated and carry insurance.

Or we could all just act like adults when going from A to B.

nah..

asobi, you are not required by law, but if the officer wishes to cite you for a violation and cannot ascertain your identity to his satisfaction, he may take you into custody.

In other words, he can't say "papieren, schnell!" but he can say "hey, dingaling, you don't have a bell, so I'm going to write you a ticket, now, papieren, schnell."

I am not completely opposed to registration, but it would need to be reasonable, easy to obtain, not cost prohibitive, and offer some sort of benefit. From what I can see here, there is no benefit to the general public. Just another level of stupidity. Not that having a way to verify the user of a bike is infact the owner isn't nice, but if that is all it is being used for, it shouldn't be mandatory.

Above all, you shouldn't have to register any vehicle you cannot insure. Part of the logic here is to make cyclist more accountable for their actions. Can I receive and failure to provide insurance citation on my bike? I cannot get standalone cycling insurance so I shouldn't be forced to register it either.

I think the first step towards demonstrating a public need for bicycle registration is demonstrating harm caused by cyclists above and beyond that of pedestrians. Until that can be done, I don't think it even merits consideration.

ok... so what exactly is the point of having car registration? I think mine costs something like ~$30, and I put a sticker on my car to avoid getting arrested or the car impounded or whatever horrid consequences there are. To me, that is why I register my car. But there had to be a reason it was put in place.

Identifying the responsible party to have insurance makes sense in a state that requires insurance on motor vehicles, and requiring insurance makes sense for vehicles that are affordable for people who may not be able to afford the conequences of a crash.

I could see where cyclists _might_ really need insurance (hit and run, or where motorists insurance is not adequate), but very few cases where a cyclist could cause more damage than they could manage. Maybe I'm not imaginative enough, but if insurance/damages are the driving point behind registration, I don't see it.

If controling riff-raff and filling coffers is a driving point, that makes total sense. It's an attempt to control loitering on two wheels, maybe?

If the point of registration is to assist in apprehending offenders of MAJOR traffic laws -- unsafe behavior causing significant injury or the real possibility of significant injury -- then I can see some justification in such laws. But as the chance of that occurring is so slight, in comparison to the cyclist being injured, that that trumps the need for such requirements.

Even if they were in place, what is the cyclist supposed to do, display a license plate visible from some distance? Even a (Penna.) motorcycle plate is small enough to be difficult to read from more than a car length or two.

Short answer: Repeal this law, and resist every effort to institute anything like it.

From my reading about Long Beach, it sounds like despite their best intentions, the police either don't like cyclists or don't know the laws.

I don't know where they draw the line, as RoadKillen mentions, do they require long boarders to be licensed as well?

From my reading about Long Beach, it sounds like despite their best intentions, the police either don't like cyclists or don't know the laws.

Unfortunately, police are not know for their legal knowledge.