VCE ENGLISH UNIT 3

ISSUES SAC MATERIAL

REGISTRATION OF BICYCLESSource: Bicycle Networkhttps://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/general/better-conditions/2690/_________________________________________________________________________________________

Bicycle Network does not support bicycle registration because it will discourage people from riding and the cost burden of setting up and administering such a scheme would be prohibitive.

Rego motion voted down

29 April 2015.The City of Bayside voted last night not to ask the State Government of Victoria to consider bicycle registration.

Bicycle Network thanks those who wrote to council and especially those councillorswho voted against the motion.

More details to follow.

Rego rears ugly head...again

27 April 2015.Almost a year ago to the day and the City of Bayside is set to embarrass itself once again byseeking to impose bike registration across Victoria.

Tomorrow the City of Bayside will vote on motion to ask theMinster for Roads, Luke Donnellan to introduce a bike registration scheme in Victoria.

The City of Bayside has yet to receive the memo that there is no credible support for bicycle registration anywhere in the world.

Proposed schemes would simply waste money,not improve road safety and discourage people from bike riding. The motion is a backwards step given the significantshift by other local councils to promote active living.

Rego rears ugly head

7 May 2014.Like some indestructible creature from a bad sci-fi movie, bike registration has again returned to haunt earthlings as the ugly transport policy that just cant be exterminated.

This time Bayside City Council has tried to escalate the debate and decided to take the issue to the meeting of the Municipal Association of Victoria.

Bayside was the municipality that steadfastly resisted, year after year, the imposition of weekend morning no-stopping zones on Beach Road. Regular crashes into parked cars, resulting in nasty injuries to riders, continued for years due to Baysides obstinacy.

It was only when a massive cash inducement was offered by the State Government that the change, now regarded at one of the best safety interventions for riders, was adopted.

The registration concept has been resurrected because, according to Bayside, riders are injuring people in crashes and riding away scot-free.

It is true that such instances have occurred. But they are extremely rare. No government administration would ever consider spending millions year after year to address such a tiny problem.

Hardly a day goes by that police dont ask for public assistance in tracing drivers that have failed to stop after a crash. Having a registered vehicle does not stop people fleeing a crash scene.

For a complete analysis of the issue, read theSydney Morning Herald articleby Bicycle Network CEO, Craig Richards.

Should bikes pay their way?

Some people say bicycle riders should pay to use roads like motorists do. Car registration, however, goes towards administration and third-party insurance, not for the construction and maintenance of roads.

Bicycle riders aren't deemed to require third-party insurance, so why should they pay for a registration administration system? Funds for roads and bicycle facilities will still come from rates and taxes.

Roads and shared paths are public resources available to anyone who wants to use them. We all contribute to their creation and maintenance and, in fact, bicycle riders create less wear and tear.

Most bicycle riders are motorists as well, so they pay their share of motor vehicle registration, licence fees and fuel tax. However, by replacing car trips with bicycle trips but paying the same, part-time riders actually subsidise full-time motorists.

Will registration help to keep track of bikes?

Another reason people call for bicycles to be registered is to make the rider accountable for their behaviour. While some bicycle riders do break the law, other ways to address this issue are likely to be more cost-effective than registration, since a reasonable registration fee could not cover the cost of administering a system to test, licence and monitor bicycle riders.

Faked registration is a problem for VicRoads with cars - it would be at least as difficult with bicycles, probably more so because people wouldn't take registration seriously for a $50 second-hand, around-town bike. And what would be done about people who have more than one bicycle?

Displaying registration plates on bicycles would also be difficult, with such a variety of different shaped bikes in use. Think of the failure to find a system of putting front licence plates on motorbikes so they can be charged for using CityLink infrastructure.

An appreciable benefit of bicycle registration would be that it would make recovering stolen bicycles easier and the reselling of stolen ones more difficult.

The verdict

By introducing a financial and administrative burden, registration would discourage people from cycling. Families would particularly suffer: riding a bicycle might become an unaffordable luxury for many kids.

Finally, motor vehicle registration fees don't cover the costs of road safety measures, nor the health costs of road trauma, car pollution and our increasingly sedentary lifestyles. Perhaps bicycle riders should actually receive a tax rebate for every day we ride because we are less of a burden on the health system and the public purse?

18 REASONS WHY REGISTERING BICYCLES IS A BAD IDEAMichael OReilly | 19 Mar 2015Source: Executive Stylehttp://www.executivestyle.com.au/18-reasons-why-registering-bicycles-is-a-bad-idea-1m23gh_________________________________________________________________________________________

Right, that's it. Enough already. I'm so tired of hearing the same contention being trotted out every time bicycles are mentioned.I refer, of course, to the ongoing clamour that cyclists need to be registered.Show me a news report to do with bicycles, and I'll show you someone on social media or a comments thread carrying on about bicycle registration as if it's the most urgent thing in road safety.A bike-riding man killed in a "dooring" incident in Melbourne? "Cyclists should be registered." A cycling young woman crushed by a truck in Brisbane's CBD? "They should pay rego."This week, news about a bill tolegislate a safe minimum passing distancewhen cars overtake bikes drew comments such as "I'll give them space when they pay to be on the roads". Charming.

The problem with such misguided contentions is that they become a form of groupthink. If people hear such things repeatedly, it becomes acceptable to them.It can also breed animosity - which can spill onto our roads, creating dangerous hostility and intolerance.In truth, the angry voices are in the minority. Most Australians accept and even support cycling - after all, more bicycles are sold than cars every year. Even among people who don't ride for transport, a survey showed60 per cent would like to do so but many say they are too scared.

But the idea of registration, even when well-intentioned, is misguided. I wrote three years ago about why cyclists should never pay rego. Since then, even more compelling evidence has come to hand that it's a bad idea,such as this government report.

So it's time to go again. And here's a suggestion: if you largely agree with the arguments set out below, spread this article around. Post it on social media, every time you see misinformed or hateful statements about cycling. Let's see if we can restore some sense to the debate:1. There is no official support for the registering of bicycles.State governments have said the measure would be unnecessary and a waste of money. This is based on conclusions reached by experts who have studied the issue in depth. Motoring organisations such as the RACV, RACQ and the NRMA also don't support bicycle rego.

2.Car registration doesn't "pay for the roads".Roads are funded through general taxation we all pay for them. And urban/suburban roads, where you find most cyclists, are maintained by councils. If a local cyclist is riding in a suburb, their rates or rent payments likely helped fund the road they're on.

3. Implementing such a scheme would be massively expensive.We're talking a sizeable new or expanded bureaucracy to process the more than 1.1 million bike sales every year, and register the many millions more already out there. As a result

4. Registration wouldn't raise much, if any, money. Administration costs would guzzle fees.A NSW government report saysthe annual cost for a driver's licence is completely swallowed up by what it costs to issue a skerrick of plastic with your picture on it. And if the costs blew out, the funds would come out of everyone's pockets - not just bike riders.

5. Cyclists pay in other ways.Bike riding is good for the economy - it eases congestion, reduces demand on public transport, doesn't cause pollution, doesn't use fossil fuels, and keeps people healthy physically and mentally. A federal government report showed that a person who travels to work by bicycle saves the economy$21 for every round trip. That's almost $5000 a year for a committed commuter! Don't forget to thank them.

6. It would hit the poor.For all the talk of "Lycra warriors" with $5000 bicycles, a significant percentage of people who ride bikes have low incomes. Charging them to register a bike or in the case of families, multiple bikes would be an added impost on those who can least afford it.

7.Registration would discourage people from cycling: Sure, keen cyclists would continue, but would all casual riders be bothered to sign up? If participation in initiatives such as Ride2Work Day, charity rides, or rolling to school with the kids, involved registering and paying a fee, many people would likely miss out on discovering the advantages of bike riding. The more cyclists there are, the safer cycling becomes.

8. Bicycles aren't inherently dangerous.As that government report says, using a quaint list of intensifiers, "a very much lower risk of death or injury is caused by the poor or illegal control of a bicycle". In fact, Australians are more likely to be struck dead by lightning than by a cyclist. We control access to things that can easily cause harm, especially towards others, such as guns and motor vehicles. Not things used by children, such as bicycles. Which brings us to

9. Registering children's bikes would be doubly ridiculous."No," people usually reply, "only adults would have to ride registered bikes." So, a simple mechanical transport device suddenly becomes a burning societal problem when the person astride it turns 17 or 18? Sure, kids are small, but many teenage boys are heftier than the average adult woman. Could a mum not borrow her son's bike? Are we going to do rego based on bodyweight instead?

10. Mounting a visible plate would be a challenge.Modern bicycles come in myriad shapes and sizes. Most bikes don't have rear racks, or even the mounting points to fit one. A large, transverse-mounted plate would stick out, possibly injuring the rider and pedestrians, and damaging cars. And think of the costs involved in designing, manufacturing and distributing this range of contraptions.

11.A vest system would be easily rortable.Some people suggest cyclists be made to wear a singlet with a number on the back. (And why stop at cyclists? Think of jay-walking pedestrians, or thugs who assault people at random surely we should all be identifiable, 24/7, for civil safety?) Once again, there would be cost and sizing issues and they would be easily lost, loaned or stolen. Imagine renting a holiday home, then not being able to ride the bike in the shed to the beach, because you left your "registration singlet" at home. Come on, Australia!

12. Police don't need rego plates to book cyclists.There are regular media reports of crackdownson bicycle riders, with hundreds fined. How do the police nab the cyclists? The same way they catch motorists by stopping themand giving them a ticket.

13. We shouldn't have to buy our safety.Some people suggest that registration will "legitimise" cyclists. In fact, cyclists always have been legitimate road users. I've heard people say, "I'll respect cyclists when they pay to use the road" but seriously, anyone who would wilfully endanger someone's life simply because they haven't paid some (currently non-existent) fee is obviously lacking in logic or common humanity.

14.Registration is not a key way to save lives.For all the talk of "law-breaking, dangerous cyclists", studies have shown that in serious or fatal collisions between cars and bicycles,four out of five times, the motorist is at fault. How's a plate going to help you when you're hit from behind by a distracted or unskilled driver?

15. Police can't easily take action on eyewitness accounts. The fantasy about cycling registration is that "if I saw a cyclist breaking the law, I could report them". Try doing that with a motor vehicle, and you'll likely find the police will do nothing.

16.The red-light issue is overblown.Red light cameras exist because cars blast through red signals at high speed, endangering other road users. Cyclists who break the law tend to act like pedestrians they stop or slow, they check the way is clear, they roll through. Very few intersections have cameras anyway and they probably wouldn't be the ones frequented by cyclists.

17.Bikes have existed for more than a century.Why is registration an issue when bikes have been around for longer than cars? Fun fact: bicycle registration was debated in Australia in the 1930s, and knocked back. Maybe people need to just learn to accommodate them again.

18.No nation in the world has bike registration.Not with number plates and significant fees. Nevertheless, other nations do so much better than we do when it comes to cycling, which suggests the real problem lies with our road culture. Increasing numbers of cyclists on our roads will bring added safety and acceptance. We should all be working towards that goal.

NATIONAL BIKE REGISTER: WHY PARTICPATE?Source: National Bike Registerhttp://www.nationalbikeregister.com.au/WhyParticipate.aspx_________________________________________________________________________________________

The National Bike Register is a database that is accessible by law enforcement agents, alerts authorities and the cycling industry about reports of stolen Bikes, quickly disseminates identifying features through social and industry networks, and provides information toInsurers and police in every state and territory to aid the investigation, identification and recovery of stolen Bikes.

Why?

Because thousands ofbikes,that belong to ordinary people, are stolen every year. Bikes are easy to steal, difficult to identifyand a quick and easy earn for organised and opportunistic thieves. Often police can identify a suspicious character but are unable to prove the bike does not in fact belong to the thief, as there is no irrefutable evidence about ownership of the asset.

Police are frustrated by the number of Bikes reported as stolen every year and the impact that it has on such a broad community of cyclists.

The National Bike Register was initiated by Police and developed by Crime Stoppers, DataDot Technology and proud Cycling sponsor, Subaru,to combat Bike theft in Australia.

The initiative will provide standardised information and communications for law enforcement.

FIVE REASONS WHY BIKE RIDER REGISTRATION IS STUPIDChristopher Jones | 17 Oct 2014Source: Bicycles Network Australiahttps://www.bicycles.net.au/2014/10/reasons-bike-rider-cyclist-registration-stupid/_________________________________________________________________________________________

You will be hard pressed to find a bike rider who thinks bike rider registration and license plates are fantastic ideas. Tabloid newspapers and shock-jocks, however, bring up the topic with each anti-bike-rider story or rant. Its a solution to a problem that doesnt exist, but there are a lot of supporters who share the view that bike rider registration and licenses means that cyclists are finally accountable and are paying for their right to use the roads. The fact is thateveryonewill be worse off with registration and/or licensing, including the vehement anti-cyclists.

In New South Wales, following several fatal and serious accidents involving cyclists, the Minister for Roads and Transport, Duncan Gay, announced his solution,I am increasingly persuaded that we need to look at alicensefor cyclists.

Mr. Gay also promoted the banning of cyclists from certain (unspecified) roads. He noted,Its not going to worry the ones that are doing the right thing, but the bad ones that are running lights, crossing over, being aggressive, theyre a large part of the statistic.

Im not sure what statistics Mr. Gay is referring to, since he hasnt produced any statistics. But what I do know from my requests to the ministerial office for information is that, underinstruction from Duncan Gay, the Department for Roads and Transport is now spending tax payer money to investigate the licensing and registration of bike riders. Its been done before, in Australia and in other countries, and its been abandoned everywhere its been tried. So, before we get as indignant about this as the shock-jocks and band-wagoneers are about cyclists, lets have a look at five good reasons why bike licensing is stupid.

1. Bike licensing will costeveryonemore money, including motoristsThe reason bike/rider licensing, for the purpose of rider identification, has been abandoned everywhere its been tried is the cost. The administration burden for implementing and managing a bike rider licensing system will cost more than any revenue generated by it. Unless its a purely user-pays system, the cost will be passed on to tax payers. If it is a genuine user pays system, the cost of registration would be more than the price of many bikes. Any sort of cost-benefit analysis rules out bike registration purely on economic grounds.2. Bike licensing willnotmake cyclists more accountableThe accountability argument presented by Duncan Gay is flawed in many ways, reasons which came to mind include:

a)Police will generally not act upon reports of cyclists breaking the law, even if they can be identified. Many bike riders have experienced this when reporting offences, such as near misses or abuse, by motorists. Unless there is a collision, police generally dont take action. Even with video footage, the police may call the offender and give them a warning, but very rarely will any reports from the public be actioned.

b)Cyclist-at-fault collisions are few and far between; it is has not been documented that hit and run incidents caused by bike riders is a problem. The reverse is in fact true, hit-and-run occurrences for motorist-at-fault accidents is unfortunately not uncommon. In discussing shock-jock demands for registration,The Age newspaper wrote,Victoria Police defended its record of catching errant cyclists, saying it was not aware of issues regarding identification of cyclists who commit road offences.

c)Licensing doesnt stop motorists from breaking the law, why would it stop cyclists?Speed and red-light cameras have caught motoriststo the tune of $90 million and $70 million dollars respectively in NSW in a year. If these motorists speed and/or dont stop when there are well sign-posted cameras about, what are motorists doing when there arent cameras about? Revenue raised by cameras has increased, which means that motorists are only accountable in a financial sense and only sometimes.

3. Bike licensing will not reduce accidents or deathsNSW Greens MP Dr Mehreen Faruqiresponded to Duncan Gays claim that licensing will magically increase the safety of bike riders, Theres no evidence that bike licensing schemes help in reducing accidents and tragic deaths. In fact, in places like Los Angeles and Switzerland they have been abolished a short time after being introduced. A piece of paper or a metal plate attached to your bike is indeed a poor defence against danger.

4. Bike licensing will reduce the number of bike ridersI suspect that the real intention of all of this bike licensing talk is to reduce the numbers of cyclists. From a simple economic point of view, this makes no sense. The Federal Government calculated in the 2013Walking, Riding and Access to Public Transport Reportthat each cycling trip saves the economy $21.

While the numbers show that cycling contributes towards the nation in terms of reduced health care, vehicle emissions, road wear, small business, as well as other social and cultural benefits, it also benefits motorists. Every cyclist is one less car on the road and one less parking spot occupied. Motor vehicles cause traffic and congestion, not bikes. We need more bikes, not less.

Forcing additional licensing and registration for cyclists, when 90% of legal-age riders already carry a drivers license, is an additional hurdle which will turn some away from the bike; cycling will be less convenient and attractive. Further, it wont just be the current crop of cyclists who feel the strain; licensing will create a bureaucratic mess when it comes to children. Will they have to pay to ride up and down the footpath? A generation of current cyclists, and all generations of future cyclists, will be affected in one fell swoop.

5. Bike licensing does not solve the problemsPoliticians and sensationalist media who are against cycling will reap popularity points if licensing or registration is introduced, but it will be a pyrrhic victory. Bike licensing will not actually solve the problems, because the real problems are not being addressed. The real problems are with road user education and awareness, and intelligent transport infrastructure.

Road users, motorists and cyclists, need more awareness of other road users and of their responsibilities on the road.Were already heading down that pathway with cyclist and motorist education campaigns, and laws such as theminimum safe passing distancelaw, which is being trialled in Queensland. These initiatives dont stop bad things from happening, but they do reinforce necessary awareness. German philosopherArthur Schopenhauer has said thatAll truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.In Australia were moving toward acceptance.

Changing attitudes towards cyclists is changing the societal software, the hardware that this requires is intelligent transport infrastructure. This is infrastructure that still accommodates the car, but also makes transport alternatives convenient and integrates them. It means that effective transport solutions that reduce congestion, such as public transport, cycling, and walking are fostered and become viable.

The spending required for cycling infrastructure (and for alternative transport) is a drop in the ocean compared with spending on new roads and road maintenance. Elevating the importance of cycling will result is real and long term positive effects for all road users.

Improving transport for everyoneOne ofthe core arguments used by motorists who are intolerant of bike riders is that cyclists slow them down. This is primarily psychological, since motorists are rarely delayed in their total trip time by bike riders. However there are roads which require smarter infrastructure to allow safe passage for bike riders and eliminate the impediment to flowing traffic, and this is where the local, state and federal governments each need to step up to their responsibility.

The long term costs savings and benefits are unfortunately not compatible with our short political cycles in Australia. Because politicians know this, they usually focus instead on short-term expensive patch up solutions to appease the masses and industry; more roads and more lanes for more cars, and more congestion, but more political points.

Ill conclude byconcedingthat politicians arent all to blame for this situation. Were a democratic society and any group as large as bike riders are should have a stronger voice that is heard around the nation. But cyclingadvocacy in Australia today is not unified; there are a lot of voices, a lot of enthusiasm, but also a lot of competition. This limits the effectiveness of cyclists as a whole to stand up and oppose ideas as stupid as licensing and registration. The disparity limits the strength we have as bike riders to push for positive initiatives and developments that will benefit our communities for years to come.

My message to you is dont let your voice be lost.

Christopher Jones is a recreational cyclist and runs a professional design business, Signale. As the driving force behind bicycles.net.au he has one of each types of bicycles.

IS IT TIME BICYCLES WERE REGISTERED?Alan Davies | 11 Jun 2013Source: Crikeyhttp://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2013/06/11/is-it-time-bicycles-were-registered/_________________________________________________________________________________________

A Parliamentary Committee in Qld is investigating the idea of registering bicycles. Thats worrying because registration is bad for cycling and wouldnt significantly benefit other road users.

Following public outrage over the courts decision last month onthe death of cyclist Richard Pollett, theTransport, Housing and Local Government Committeeof the Qld Parliament agreed last Friday to inquire into a number of issues that might improve the interaction of cyclists with other road users.

The Committee is looking at a range of potential policy responses, including the one metre overtaking rule advocated by a number of cycling organisations. However its terms of reference also require it to examine the potential benefits and impacts of bicycle registration.

Bicycle registration comes up whenever the place of bicycles on the nations roads is discussed publicly. This time though its being seriously considered by state legislators as a potential policy response. It accordingly needs to be evaluated very carefully by all parties with an interest in cycling.

There are two main arguments in support of registration of bicycles. The first is the charge that cyclists dont pay for their use of roads until they do they cant expect to be on the same footing as drivers. The second is the claim that cyclists need to be publicly identifiable to deter them from wilfully disobeying the rules of the road.

Cyclists are told registration will make them better off because, the theory goes, motorists will acknowledge they have a legitimate right to the road and take greater care around them.

The customarycounter from cycliststo the first argument is that revenue from registration fees and the fuel excise tax isnt hypothecated to road expenditure. Roads are funded from general revenue so everyone pays for them.

Moreover, registration fees are based on vehicle weight and it follows that cyclists contribution to road damage is therefore trivial. Cyclists of course dont use petrol or diesel so the fuel excise is irrelevant to them.

As usual, theres some truth and some hyperbole on both sides of the argument.

I dont think the claim that motorists pay for roads can be dismissed out of hand. The fuel excise is $0.38 per litre. Thats about $627 p.a. for the average car. While thats general revenue, drivers are clearly taxed in their role as motorists and theres no doubt the fuel excise moderates the demand for driving. Its verging on sophistry to argue motorists dont pay their way financially, at least in part; and politically its an unwinnable proposition.

Its also unreasonable to claim cyclists should get a free run on the roads. Bicycles are too light to damage roads but weather also causes deterioration. More importantly, bicycles occupy road space. That tends to be overlooked when the number of cyclists is small but is more obvious when numbers are large.

Cyclists need smooth pavement and that has to be constructed and maintained. Indeed, theres an argument that the movement for good road surfaces from circa 1880 was primarily in response topressure from cyclists. (fn 1)

While theres substance in the claim that motorists pay and cyclists dont, it nevertheless doesnt provide an adequate rationale for registration. A couple of other factors have to be taken into account.

First, cyclists impose low social costs. They dont contribute much to traffic congestion, road accidents, noise and pollution, and they dont degrade the amenity of nearby land uses. The investment in infrastructure required to support cycling is very low compared to other mechanised modes.

The social benefits of cycling very likely exceed their financial cost. It makes little sense to tax cyclists if it deters them from using a form of transport that is exceptionally sustainable and requires limited infrastructure investment.

Second, the income from any plausible level of charges would likely be wholly or largely consumed by thecost of administering a registration system. If a hypothecated revenue stream for cycling infrastructure were to be established it would be better to do it some other way, e.g. a tax on new bicycles.

The other main rationale for registration that cyclists ought to be identifiable is reasonable in principle. After all, this obligation applies to other road users and is intended to promote cooperative behaviour. (fn 2)

Theres a practical problem though a legible licence plate would be too large to be practical on a bike (although in due course transponders might overcome this problem). But the main weakness with the identification rationale is that it simply wouldnt achieve much.

Cyclists dont usually exceed the speed limit and very rarely cause personal harm to motorists. Its not that theyre morally superior; its just that theyre too slow to speed and theyre too light to seriously injure motorists (they can certainly hurt themselves though). Sure, they negotiate red lights, but the harm that causes to others is minimal.

Some cyclists can be a nuisance on footpaths and this behaviour might well be the source of most political pressure for registration. However unless sidewalks and shared paths are subject to constant surveillance (a very expensive exercise), it wouldnt do much to improve the welfare of pedestrians.

Possibly the most serious objection to registration is primarily political. Many households at all income and wealth levels have multiple bicycles. Many of them are childrens bicycles and a lot arent worth much. Charging even $40 p.a. registration (which is around what my council charges for each spayed dog) would be a very hard sell.

Overall then, registration sounds like poor policy. It would very likely deter cycling and thereby increase economic costs. Cycling doesnt cost the community much financially and registration would be costly to administer.

There would be little practical advantage in it for motorists. Nor would there be any benefit for cyclists it wouldnt significantly improve the way motorists behave toward them. As Iexplained here, drivers dont see cyclists as legitimate road users. Registration isnt going to change that fundamental.

There are other relevant issues thrown up by this topic but Ill have to leave them for another time. They include the warrant for licensing of cyclists (sometimes confused with registration of bicycles) and the case for (or against) a hypothecated tax/levy on bicycles to pay for infrastructure._________________________________________________________________________________________

(fn 1)A surprisingly common argument is that since most cyclists are also car owners, they already pay registration fees. Thats always struck me as an invalid argument because registration applies to the vehicle not the person. If you own multiple vehicles you pay multiple registrations.

(fn 2) Some object that pedestrians arent registered so cyclists shouldnt be either. Thats another invalid argument. For one thing, vehicles are registered, not people (licensing is a separate issue). Also, while pedestrians cross roads theyre no more road users than cars are sidewalk users (cars cross sidewalks too). When theyre used on roads bicycles are a form of mechanised transport, not some variation on jogging.

SHOULD BICYCLES BE REGISTERED?Alan Davies | 6 Feb 2012Source: Crikeyhttp://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2012/02/06/should-bicycles-be-registered-2/_________________________________________________________________________________________

Fairfax columnist Bruce Guthrie reckons theres a case forcompulsory registration of bicycles. He thinks rego might at least begin to heal the rift between riders and motorists by making cyclists more accountable for what he sees as their poor on-road behaviour.

The key downsides of registration are clear enough. It would impose an ongoing financial burden on households, it would very likely be a deterrent to cycling, and it would require considerable resources to administer. The politics are so horrendous its not likely to happen anyway (there are just too many households with multiple bicycles), but what Im interested in is whether or not it would be good policy.

The theory is registration would enable errant cyclists to be traced via their licence plate and justice meted out, but Im hard pressed to see what the tangible benefits would be. Speeding is the most common traffic offence, so licence plates mean motorists captured on speed cameras can be tracked down, but speeding has very little relevance to cyclists. So the benefit of bicycle licence plates is massively diminished.

Most other traffic offences, such as failing to halt at a stop sign or driving under the influence, arent detectable by remote cameras. You have to be caught committing the offence by police whore on the spot. In that situation the police are only interested in the identity of the driver or the rider, not the vehicle. So again, licence plates for bicycles would have little relevance.

People sometimes say theyd like bicycles to have a licence plate so they can report poor cyclist behaviour to the police. The trouble with that is police cant and dont do anything about reports they cant corroborate. That holds for motorists and it would hold for cyclists too.

What the case for licence plates mainly comes down to is a single situation red light cameras. Yes, many cyclists do ignore traffic signals, but deterring offenders hardly seems enough of a pay-off to warrant a major bureaucratic undertaking like a registration system. There arent even that many cyclists compared to other road users cycling only accounts for around 1% of all passenger trips.

Therere also some practical issues. The vast majority of signalised intersections dont have cameras. Its questionable if the cameras could even read the sort of small licence plate that would be feasible for a bicycle.

In any event, its pertinent to ask what the benefit of trying to prevent cyclists from ignoring red lights would be. When a motorist runs a red light a common occurrence in my experience he potentially endangers others. When a cyclist deliberately runs a red light, for all practical purposes she only endangers herself.

Cyclists actually rarely run red lights its simply too dangerous for their health. What they mostly do is cross against the red, but only after theyve taken the precaution of seeing that theres no danger. Its an unlawful but calculated decision. Very few cyclists are killed or seriously injured by this practice, so the public benefit of registration in terms of avoided health care costs is doubtful.

I cant see how motorists would be better off if cyclists were prevented from ignoring red lights in this way in fact drivers might even benefit from cyclists crossing against the red if it means cyclists clear the intersection quicker. Some motorists could get psychic value from bicycle registration, but it sounds like spite (which isnt to say there arent other offences by cyclists that impact negatively on drivers, but the issue is whether or not they would be mitigated by bicycle registration).

Another whole line of argument is that equity demands cyclists should pay registration fees because other road users do. Its true that cyclists use road space, but they occupy much less than cars, both while moving and stationary. They also travel many fewer kilometres in a year than motorised vehicles and they impose negligible maintenance costs. Once the cost of third party personal insurance is stripped out as it should be since cyclists arent a serious danger to other road users its likely any plausible fee would fall well short of the cost of collection.

But perhaps, as Bruce Guthrie contends, the pay-off for cyclists from registration would lie in winning the acceptance and respect of motorists and thereby making cycling on the road safer. This is one of those propositions thats hard to prove or disprove. My feeling is it would make very little difference because the problem is motorists tend to regard the roadsas theirexclusive dominionand to see cyclists as trespassers. Registration might give cyclists some debating points, but Im not persuaded it would change motorists negative attitudes.

Those motorists who advocate bicycle registration might regret their words if, in the event it were implemented, enough cyclists decided registration gave them licence to occupy the whole road rather than the edge.

Bruce Guthrie finishes his column by suggesting cyclists needsomeone prominentto front their campaign to win more respect from motorists. He suggests (presumably with his tongue planted firmly in his cheek) Shane Warne. Not that hed probably be interested, butcyclists dont need Shane Warne.

Cycling already has its own version of The Master of Spin in the person of Tony Abbott. Forget his politics; hes probably the best thing thats happened in a long time forregularisingcycling on roads. He might be a lycra lout on carbon rather than a humble commuter, but hes prominent, hes not defined primarily by cycling (like, say, Cadel Evans), and he ridesmainly on roads, mixing it with traffic.

COUNCILS CALL TO REGISTER BICYCLESSHOT DOWN BY TRANSPORT GROUPSAisha Dow & Carmelene Greco | 6 May 2014Source: The Agehttp://www.theage.com.au/comment/bicycle-registration-radical-expensive-and-sure-to-get-people-off-their-bikes-20140506-zr5zq.html_________________________________________________________________________________________

A Melbourne council has been lampooned by cycling advocates and the RACV after petitioning for new laws requiring bicycles to be registered and cyclists to be licensed.

The Bayside City Council will ask the Municipal Association of Victoria to lobby the government for a major overall of cycling regulations. The borough is home to a popular weekend 17-kilometre run for cyclists, along Beach Road.

The council says if cyclists were forced to get a license or register their bikes, the police and the public could more easily identify cyclists who fail to adhere to the road rules. Its petition also calls for education programs to increase the awareness of the vulnerability of bicycle riders.

The proposal has been ravaged by the transport lobby, which says the reforms would be a huge and unnecessary cost for the state.

Bicycle Network Victoria spokesman Garry Brennan said the push to have bikes registered had long been a dead duck. He said almost every place in the world that had sought to implement the policy had later abandoned it.

Its too expensive and provides no benefits for the community, he said.

If you say there is a problem with people leaving the scene of an accident, the problem is with motorists.

Mr Brennan said Bayside Council had a history of being anti-cycling, resisting for many years a successful move to introduce morning no-stopping zones for cars on Beach Road. He said local council had consistently voted against it until the Labor government gave them the money for it.

Bayside mayor Laurence Evans said the councils motion to the MAV was prompted by a number of crashes between cyclists, in which one of the cyclists had left the scene. He said in one of these cases his friend was left with multiple injuries.

But Cr Evans conceded the motion probably needed reworking, because the council was unsure what was the best way to address the issue of law-breaking cyclists. He said the council loved people riding through the municipality.

What were really doing is asking the government to look into the issue because its not just our problem.

Bayside resident, Tom Quirk, 20, said registration of bicycles or the licensing of cyclists was "terrible idea".

Mr Quirk has worked at O'Mara, a popular bike shop on Beach Road, for four years and said a licence process would definitely discourage people from riding.

"They should be trying to encourage people to get out and stay healthy," he said."A lot of people get a bike to commute because it is cheaper, but now its not going to be cheaper, its going to be expensive as well.

RACVs road and traffic manager, Dave Jones, said the peak motoring group did not support bike registrations or licences. Because cycling is enjoyed by people of all ages, he said it would be more practical to invest in road education and training rather than implement a licence system.

RUN-IN HAS WARNE PEDDLING CYCLIST REGISTRATION18 Jan 2012Source: ABChttp://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-18/warne-wants-cyclists-registered/3780942_________________________________________________________________________________________

Shane Warne's Twitter comments about his run-in with a cyclist in Melbourne have sparked renewed debate about the merits, or otherwise, of a bicycle registration scheme in Australia.

Warne says he was harassed by a cyclist who hit his car while he was driving home from a recent MCG training session.

But the cyclist says Warne drove his car into his bike wheel and wants the cricket legend to pay for the damage.

While there are conflicting reports about what happened, Warne is standing by his calls for bike riders to be forced to display registration plates so they can be tracked down if they break road rules.

"I think what disappoints a lot of people is the attitude of the bike rider. They don't own the road," Warne said before training with his Melbourne Stars Big Bash cricket team on Wednesday.

"My main concern is the attitude of the bike riders. Just respect everyone on the road.

"Can we please have registration plates on bikes so we can report them if they're doing something wrong?"

However cycling advocates say such a scheme would be doomed to failure.

Bicycle Victoria says bike registration schemes are too costly to administer and have never been successfully implemented anywhere in the world.

"We have more bikes sold in Australia each year than cars, and it would require a massive huge bureaucracy to run a bike registration system," spokesman Garry Brennan said.

Victorian road authorities have ruled out introducing registration for bicycles, with VicRoads spokesman James Holgate saying it would discourage cycling and is not an option.

Warne also suggested cyclists should be forced to ride single file and not two abreast.

Version of events

Meanwhile, the cyclist involved in the traffic dispute has contradicted Warne's version of events inan email to the blog Cycling Tips.

Warne took to Twitter on Tuesday to tell his version of the events that occurred while he was stopped at lights on St Kilda Road. He says a cyclist hit his car and held onto it to pull himself through traffic and abused him and held up traffic when confronted.

Warne says he tried to "slowly move around him" but clipped the cyclist's tyre because he was too close.

But the cyclist involved says he was trying to navigate his way through traffic to a dedicated bike lane when the owner of a Mercedes started yelling at him.

He says when he tried to ride away, the driver, who he recognised as Warne, "lurched his car forward, forcing my bike wheel and almost my leg under the front of his car".

He says he carried the bike to a police station to report the incident.

Warne says he would be willing to work with cycling advocacy groups after he was criticised for inciting hatred towards cyclists.

He says he wanted to make it clear he did not hate bike riders but wanted them to obey road rules.

Police say they have investigated the incident involving Warne and will not be pursuing it further due to its minor nature.

BICYCLE REGISTRATION IS NOT THE ANSWER FOR BAD BEHAVIOURChris Rissel | 20 January 2012Source: The Conversationhttp://theconversation.com/bicycle-registration-is-not-the-answer-for-bad-behaviour-4987_________________________________________________________________________________________

Theres nothing like a bikes vs drivers story to whip commentators into a frenzy, and this weeksstoushbetween Shane Warne and a Melbourne cyclist is no exception. Whenever this issue comes up, there are calls for cyclists to be registered - either to pay their way or so their behaviour can be monitored. But what difference would registration make?

Resorting to legislation is rarely the best solution to any social problem. Its easy for Warne to call for cyclists to be registered or the Lord Mayor of Melbourne to want to crack down on hoon cyclists in pedestrian areas whenever someone on a bicycle breaks a rule. But a legislative response is out of proportion to the size of the problem and creates more problems than it tries to solve.

Who knows what happened with that one cyclist and the spin-master Warne? Did the cyclist break some road rules? Did Warne run over the bike? Its easy to blame a cyclist: lets face it, they get lots of bad press, theyre a minority, an out group rather than an in-group.

However, we need to look at the underlying issues here. Do cyclists need to be monitored more closely? Do most cyclists break the road rules? The Amy Gillett Foundation, with Monash academicMarilyn Johnson, used a covertvideo camera to record cyclistsat ten sites across metropolitan Melbourne from October 2008 to April 2009. They found that of 4,225 cyclists facing a red light, only 6.9% didnt stop. The vast majority of those who broke the rules were just turning left.

Would registration reduce this rate? Registering bicycles would create more problems than it fixes. It would cost the state far more than it would collect in revenue. The police resources required to enforce a bicycle registration scheme are simply not worth the ability to able to fine a handful of people behaving badly on bicycles.

When a pedestrian or cyclist breaks safety road rules they are most likely to hurt themselves, not others. The cost to society of pedestrians jaywalking, or cyclists riding too fast on a shared path, are miniscule compared to the damage a two tonne mass of metal, rubber and plastic speeding through a red light or stop sign can do.

Riding too fast on a shared path with lots of pedestrians is a social problem more than a legal problem. It is bad manners, like someone running through a crowded mall. Collectively we need to remind each other that that sort of behaviour is inappropriate and re-establish norms around respect and basic etiquette.

Bicycle registration would be a powerful disincentive to cycling. All levels of government in Australia have plans and targets to increase levels of cycling, because of the significant health, environmental and congestion-reduction benefits. When people shift trips from driving a car to riding a bike, everyone benefits. But bike registration would likely deter even more riders thanmandatory helmet legislation(30-40% of riders stopped cycling when that was introduced).

Then there are the myriad problems of establishing a bicycle registration scheme. Do you register the rider (who may own multiple bicycles) or the bicycle? What about childrens bikes, or off-road mountain bikes not used on the road?

If bicycle registration fees were based on the same principal as car registration fees, they would cost almost zero dollars. Vehicle registration used to be based on the weight of a vehicle, and therefore the damage the vehicle did to the road. Trucks pay more than cars, which pay more than motorcycles. Bicycles weigh very little and cause no damage to a road.

At any rate, most bicycle riders (80%) have drivers licences or pay taxes that in part contribute to road funding (its not widely known that registration fees dont go directly to road funding: like nearly all taxes they go into central revenue and are distributed as needed).

Some argue that bicycle registration would provide insurance for the rider or third party insurance in the case of a crash. In Victoria, at least,state insurance already covers cyclistsfor any accident with a motor vehicle. Insurance is also available to members of bicycle organisations in Australia, and could easily be incorporated into other types of insurance schemes.

If bicycle registration changed driver behaviour in a way that legitimised cycling then Id be all for it. However, I cant see a small metal plate with some numbers on it slowing impatient drivers down, or helping drivers see bicycles on the road, or affecting drivers in any meaningful way that made it safer for bicycles.

Rather than pursuing registration, politicians and cycling groups need to do more to promote existingcycling etiquette guides which emphasise respect for all road users. Bike shops should give these out whenever someone buys a bike, to reinforce good behaviour. Campaigns like Do the right thing can help support social norms about how all road users need to slow down and be respectful of each other.

Making more laws is rarely the answer to social problems like the interaction between different road users. This is not a question of legality: its a matter of manners, awareness, and of mutual respect.

Chris Rissel is a Professor of Public Health at University of Sydney.

WHY BICYCLE REGISTRATION IS A MUSTFlip Shelton | 17 May 2009Source: The Agehttp://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/why-bicycle-registration-is-a-must-20090516-b6ra.html_________________________________________________________________________________________

All road users should have to do 100 hours on other modes of transport.

As a cyclist, I say bike registration is a must but not so narrow-minded car drivers can ensure that the few cyclists who flout the law can be held accountable. No, so we can be paid by the State Government for contributing to the betterment of our city and our own health.

More bikes were sold last year than cars. And with petrol prices still high, more jobs being lost, the fiscal pinch caused by the global financial crisis, and the dire public transport situation, the number of bike sales will likely rise further.

The benefits of cycling getting fit, reducing carbon emissions and allaying traffic congestion come with big risks. On average, more than 2500 cyclists Australia-wide are admitted to hospitals each year suffering broken bones and other injuries. About 39 cyclists die on the roads each year.

Cyclists are killed by cars and trucks, so car and truck drivers who don't ride a bike should pay more on their registration to cover this cost.

The Government should be actively looking at ways to encourage people to ride for both commuting and leisure. Stinging riders with a registration is ridiculous and short-sighted.

The ancient Greek philosopher Plato said: "No law or ordinance is mightier than understanding." The biggest problem we have on the road is a lack of understanding.

Many drivers don't realise the anxiety they cause by driving too close, or too quickly, or honking. They don't know because they have never been in our cleats, so to speak. That's quite understandable often it is impossible to imagine a situation if you haven't been there.

And to those people I say, get on a bike and ride the roads for some first-hand experience.

But it's not just cyclists who are affected. In addition to the rise of bike sales, there has been a huge rise in scooter sales over the past five years, with sales jumping in the past year. For example, Vespa and Piaggio sales grew by 54 and 84 per cent respectively from 2005 to 2006.

The roads now support various forms of transport, and the only way all can co-exist is with understanding.

I am a cyclist, car driver and have a scooter licence. My partner is a cyclist, a motorcyclist for more than 20 years, a car driver and has a B-double truck licence.

Learning to ride a scooter gave me yet another perspective it taught me how to position myself on the road and to be more aware. In fact, I reckon it has made me a better driver. I look for as opposed to look out for all forms of smaller craft on the road and I drive much more conscientiously than before.

I believe the only way to reduce injury and death on the roads is to make it compulsory to have a minimum number of hours riding on the road on a bike, scooter or motorbike and driving a car, bus and truck. And we should all experience what it is like to be a taxi driver or courier.

Every day there are stories on the radio, TV and newspapers about trucks, taxis, cyclists, couriers, motorbikes, car drivers and pedestrians all doing the wrong thing. We are all pointing the finger at everyone else's mistakes on the roads.

But there are also so many mistaken beliefs being peddled too. One woman on talkback radio last week said cyclists should ride on the Beach Road bike path only, yet those bike paths are for those under 12 years of age and with a speed limit of "walking" pace.

Indeed, those paths are shared with dogs, prams, walkers and runners. Other talkback callers complained about cyclists riding two abreast yet this is legally allowed.

Experience is the only way we can understand what it's like to be in someone else's shoes. So let's introduce the Law of Understanding, which would mean anyone wanting a licence of any kind has to notch up a minimum of 100 hours riding and driving other forms of transport.

Only then will we be able to reduce accidents and injuries on our roads because only then we will be able to see ourselves as the person we are approaching or overtaking on the road.

Flip Shelton is a Melbourne writer.

WHY CYCLISTS SHOULD NEVER PAY REGOMichael OReilly | 14 Jun 2012Source: Executive Stylehttp://www.executivestyle.com.au/why-cyclists-should-never-pay-rego-20bk6_________________________________________________________________________________________

Pay yer rego!

It's a cry I've heard many times while cycling, and it always confuses me.

For starters, I've already paid rego twice this year: for a car and a motor scooter. When I'm on my bike, these vehicles are at home, taking a break from clogging the road or burning fossil fuels (in fact, my car was getting so much rest, I got rid of it).

Secondly, there is no rego fee for a bicycle. So how am I supposed to pay it?

The idea that cyclists should pay registration is a perennial one for bike-bashers, and seems to revolve around two pet theories.

The first notion, that of user pays, falls down on a vast number of points, including:

1. Road construction is paid for out of general taxation. We all fund the roads, even those who only ever walk. Besides,rego revenue falls far shortof the amount spent on roads, and is swallowed up by administration fees and third party insurance.

2. Local road repairs are paid for by councils your rates are subsidising people who drive through your suburb (the bludgers!).

3. Cars are charged by weight and the damage they do. In NSW, a 1.51-tonne car costs $459 to register and a 950-kilogram vehicle, $243; on that sliding scale, what might the owner of a 10-kilogram bicycle pay?

The second theory regards registration plates being used for law enforcement: I could report the number of a cyclist breaking the road rules, and they'd get a fine.

This idea fails in so many areas it's hard to know where to start. Have you ever noted the number of a car that breaks the law, and phoned it in to the police? They will sigh and tell you there's nothing they can do.

If visible registration plates prevent traffic violations, then surely we should never see car drivers speeding, tailgating or texting while driving? Besides, cyclists who cause accidents are likely to do the most damage to themselves; in a car crash, the culpable driver has a good chance of escaping unharmed. Is a massive, costly logistical exercise, registering the 1 million bicycles sold in Australia every year, really worth it to maybe catch a few cyclists who treat red lights as give way signs?

Then there are the practical considerations. Would it be the cyclist or the bicycle that is registered? Does three bikes mean three regos? For a number plate to be visible to a red-light camera, it would have to be large and transversely mounted. Where and how would it attach? How many riders and pedestrians would be injured by those plate edges, not to mention car paint jobs scratched?

While we're at it, why not register pedestrians? As waspointed out in a hilarious columnon Monday, they're always jaywalking, demanding separate paths and getting themselves run over. Register the lot of 'em!

Wait if boats have to pay registration, isn't it about time surfers paid too? And displayed registration, so we can film and fine them if they stray into swimming zones?

And it's about now that I should ask you, dear reader, with tears in my true-blue eyes:

What kind of an Australia do we want to live in?

Imagine renting a beachside holiday house, finding a couple of bicycles in the shed then realising you don't have a bike licence, or forgot to bring it.

Imagine having to explain to foreigners that we are the only nation in the world where riding a bicycle - a global transport solution that is way older than the car - requires a licence.

It would be nanny-stateism gone bonkers. A redefinition of the concept of world's worst practice.

Why hinder a form of transport that has doubled in use in the Sydney CBD in the past year, and makes upan impressive 11 per cent of vehiclesin the Melbourne city centre?

Registering cycles would instantly cause use to plummet. Instead of filtering through side streets or using paths over major bridges, former cyclists would be putting more cars on the roads and more people on our struggling public transport networks.

Yes motorists would suffer.

Happily, despite the mouthings of shock jocks, Shane Warne and people who should know better, there appear to be no official moves to bring in such a retrograde move.

And even though the NSW government is sending mixed messages on bike lanes (while doing nothing), and the Victorian government has cut funding for cycle infrastructureto a big fat zero, sparking protests,cycling participation continues to grow.

Healthier citizens, less pressure on public transport, a reduction in pollution, congestion and parking problems who would want to put a price on that?

WHY CYCLISTS SHOULD PAY FOR REGO6 May 2010Source: IT Pro The Agehttp://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/why-cyclists-should-pay-for-rego-20100505-uawh.html_________________________________________________________________________________________

It is usually in the form of a rant from some angry driver yelling out their car window or obnoxious media personality. It sounds simple enough, but not only is this argument flawed in its logic, it's also a simple fact that the money from rego goes towards insurance and administration rather than construction and maintenance of roads. Roads are not a user pays system. If you pay taxes, you pay for the roads. If you're a motorist who argues for a user pays system for roads, you should be careful what you wish for. You could end up paying much more than you already do.

The reason why cyclists do not pay rego is because the potential for bicycles to cause damage and harm is negligible compared to motor vehicles. There's no disputing the simple fact that motor vehicles seriously injure and kill people every day. Even though cyclists take up less space than cars and incur no additional costs on the road system, I argue that cyclists should indeed have the option to pay for rego. Besides the fact that it would bury this ridiculous argument and get motorists off our backs, there's a more important reason - insurance.

In Victoria the insurance that rego pays for is called TAC. Every state has something similar. This is a no-fault insurance scheme which provides excellent cover, particularly for serious traffic accidents. Fortunately as cyclists we are covered by TAC if involved in an accident with a motor vehicle (technically, the vehicle needs to be running).

However, when a cyclist is involved in an accident thatdoes notinvolve a motor vehicle we are left uninsured by TAC. The public insurance system will cover the majority of the costs however ambulance and therapy thereafter may be expensive and elective surgery could be a lengthy wait. If the accident is catastrophic (e.g. spinal or brain injuries), private insurance may only cover a portion of the costs. The amount of therapy needed and lifestyle modifications required for a catastrophic injury could amount to a small fortune. If cyclists had the option to pay rego, TAC would provide adequate cover forallsevere injuries that occur on the road.

The majority of serious cycling accidents involve a motor vehicle so there's a good chance that TAC would cover the costs. However, a situation such as crashing on a high speed descent or suddenly hitting a stray dog could result in severe or catastrophic injuries that would not be covered by TAC.

Unfortunately a registration scheme derived specifically for bicycles would likely cost more to administer than the insurance premiums themselves. However, an add-on to the current TAC scheme could conceivably work well at a fraction of the cost of a separate policy. I don't know a single cyclist who doesn't also own a car (and therefore pays rego), so an add-on to our vehicle registration would be a logical step to implement.

Along with vehicle registration comes license plates. Another common argument is that bicycles should have a means of identification. I agree with this in theory as I'd like to see cyclists be accountable for their actions, however when have license plates ever deterred reckless hoons? I see motorists break laws every day and I've never reported a vehicle for a minor infraction.I don't see the problem of reckless cyclists being solved with license plates.

Bikes have been outselling cars in Australia for nearly a decade now. If cyclists paid rego it would not only provide adequate insurance for us in the most serious of situations, it would give cyclists a more powerful voice to guide road policies and legitimize our use of the road.

DRIVERS SAY ITS TIME CYCLISTS PAID A REGO FEEReid Sexton | 12 Apr 2009Source: The Sydney Morning Heraldhttp://www.smh.com.au/national/drivers-say-its-time-cyclists-paid-a-rego-fee-20090411-a3hg.html_________________________________________________________________________________________

Photo: Justin McManus

Ask Harry Barber if he thinks cyclists should pay a registration fee to ride their bikes and he is straight to the point.

It would be ridiculous, the Bicycle Victoria chief says, to tax transport that costs less to fund than other modes and contributes virtually nothing to carbon emissions.

But recent talk suggests the boom in cycling is accompanied by a similar rise in people who think cyclists should have to pay and be held accountable for their time on the road.

In February, 3AW radio host Neil Mitchell called for a registration fee or tax at the point of sale to help pay for the State Government's new $115 million bike strategy.

His call echoed that of then Federal Opposition spokesman on sports, Pat Farmer, who last year said cyclists should pay registration to fund infrastructure and safety campaigns.

The latest Transport Accident Commission data shows that in the five years to 2007, the number of cyclists lodging successful claims after an accident with motorised transport rose significantly each year while the number of other claims plateaued or fell.

In 2003, 3.6 per cent of approved claims for taxpayer assistance for medical bills came from cyclists. By 2007, cyclists made up 5.4 per cent of approved claims.

This figure is roughly in line with the boom that led to around 22,000 people riding to work at the time of the 2006 census, a rise of around 50 per cent in five years.

All indicators suggest that number has grown steadily since then, but the issue of medical funding is not the only one that has people thinking cyclists should pay for their road use.

A survey commissioned last month by car insurer Budget Direct found 50 per cent of Melbourne motorists surveyed supported the introduction of a cyclist registration fee.

Some who want cyclists registered said bike riders should pay for infrastructure costs like other road users, but most said cyclists should be registered so they could be identified if they broke road rules.

Budget Direct spokeswoman Richelle Ward said drivers were tired of putting up with cyclists who regularly flouted the law but could not be reported. "A lot of people feel very strongly about this," she said.

"It's nothing sinister but a lot of people are saying they get nervous when bicycles do silly things on the road they feel cyclists should be held accountable.

"The problem isn't (children) on the road. It's when cyclists are ducking in and out of traffic and running red lights."

Victoria Police defended its record of catching errant cyclists, saying it was not aware of issues regarding identification of cyclists who commit road offences.

Harry Barber concedes a minority of cyclists break the law but said better enforcement rather than better identification would solve the problem. "Enforcement is a job for police, (not motorists)," he said.

"This is not a matter of passing a lot of laws that aren't enforced.

"The police have plenty of laws that they can enforce but they have other priorities and are pretty busy."

Mr Barber said most cyclists were also motorists and so already funded the TAC through car registration fees.

But he said if non-drivers were asked to provide TAC funding then it would have to extend to pedestrians and public transport users, because they were also at risk of being injured by a car.

Mr Barber said cycling infrastructure provided taxpayers with value for money by moving more people for less cost than other transport modes.

He cited the recent safety upgrade of bike lanes on Rathdowne Street in Carlton which has boosted the number of riders who use it by 100 a day for $150,000.

This is a fraction of what it would cost to get a comparable number of people on buses or moving through Melbourne's congested road network by car, he said. "Asking cyclists to pay is having it exactly the wrong way around," he said.

"The saving that using a bike delivers (to taxpayers) is enormous then there are the climate and health benefits."

But in Brisbane, the idea of using cyclist registration fees to fund bicycle infrastructure appears to be gaining pace.

Last week, just under half of 400 cyclists surveyed said they would support a licensing scheme, with most saying their support would be withdrawn if the money was not put towards creating better bike paths.

The survey organiser said it showed that people were now prepared to pay to ride if it meant guaranteeing their safety.

Cyclist James Storer, 34, rides his bike to work most days from Carnegie to South Melbourne.

He would back a bike levy of around $200 but only if it funded education campaigns to improve the relationship between cyclists and motorists.

His friend and fellow cyclist Nathan Gallacher said only a nominal fee would be appropriate, and even then only for identification purposes.

"If you look at the damage to roads and the environment caused by cars a bike does zero damage in comparison."

A VicRoads spokesman said it did not have the resources to make bicycle registration a viable option.

RIDING ROUGHSHODBruce Guthrie | 5 Feb 2012Source: The Agehttp://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/riding-roughshod-20120204-1qyt6.html_________________________________________________________________________________________

Premier Ted Baillieu finally killed off the notion of bicycle registration, no doubt prompting sighs of relief from lycra-clad pedal-pushers. Said Ted: ''I think everybody has come down in the past on the side of not doing that, and that's certainly the starting point for me.'' It was a victory for common sense and cyclists.

At least, I think it was. On re-examining the Premier's comments, you realise he left himself a lot of wriggle room. And, more importantly, maybe registration is just what cyclists need if they are ever going to be treated with respect by other road users.

For the most part, I admire cyclists and believe the more we encourage cycling the better. It has obvious health and environmental benefits. But while I am loath to entertain the idea of any new government impost, bicycle registration might at least begin to heal the rift between riders and motorists.

And what a rift it is, as evidenced by the extraordinary support Shane Warne attracted recently in his call for registration. While the incident that provoked his call is the subject of claim and counter-claim, there is no doubt the cricketer tapped into a rich vein of anger among motorists frustrated by the aggressive behaviour of some cyclists and their lack of accountability.

I know that some of this aggression is necessary to simply survive on roads where cyclists are outnumbered, outsized, outweighted and constantly at risk of injury or worse. But do they have to be so righteously indignant about it?

I've had obscenities hurled at me for daring to turn left across the path of cyclists tens of metres behind me, been yelled at for opening my driver side door inappropriately (and, yes, I looked first to make sure it was safe), been almost bowled over at a pedestrian crossing by a cyclist running a red light, and, in one particularly memorable moment, had a cyclist hang on to my car at a red light and then flip me the bird as he took off ahead of me when red turned to green. And they have this annoying habit of changing their riding habits - one minute they'll use the road, then the footpath, then a pedestrian crossing, if it suits them. (Besides, on Sunday mornings, they crowd out all the best coffee joints.)

Whenever any of this happens I find myself thinking: how come I have to pay to share the road, but cyclists get off scot-free? And why can they break all these road rules anonymously? If it were a motorist I would at least be able to give police a registration number. If I failed to stop at a red light my picture would be taken and I'd be out $300 and three demerit points.

That's the root of the problem, isn't it? That motorists, motorcyclists, truck drivers and just about any other road user you care to name has to fork out hundreds of dollars each year for the right to use our roads, but cyclists are not required to spend a penny, or be identified. They don't even have to have any kind of licence or training or rider education. No matter what traffic engineers might try to tell us, experience teaches us that cars and bicycles do not go together well.

I have the same reservations about cyclists and pedestrians. Anyone who has ever tried to negotiate Southbank around 5pm on weekdays will know it's a dance with disaster, as homeward-bound pedallers flout speed restrictions.

All of which means the more separation the better, preferably more designated bike lanes. But where is the money going to come from to build them?

Hawaii has had a bicycle registration program since early last century and it doesn't seem to have dampened enthusiasm for cycling. According to the Honolulu mayor's office, the scheme was originally motivated by a desire to cut down on bicycle theft or, at least, aid recovery when it happens. Now it's put into a special bikeway fund used to pay for bike projects and programs.

The scheme is simple and is run out of the local equivalent of VicRoads, so there is no huge additional administrative cost. All bicycles with 20-inch wheels or larger have to be registered for a one-time fee of $15 and an additional $5 if the ownership is ever transferred.

The cyclist is given a unique numbered decal that is attached to the bicycle frame's seat tube. While Bicycle Network Victoria has no detailed figures on the number of bikes on our roads, a spokesman said more than 10 million new bikes had been sold in Australia over the past decade.

Victoria's share of that would probably be at least 2 million. Even if only half were subject to registration, that's a lot of money that could be going to cycling infrastructure and programs. These could include an advertising campaign aimed at educating motorists - and cyclists - about better road behaviour.

With that sort of money, they might even be able to afford someone prominent to front them. Shane Warne perhaps?

Bruce Guthrie is a former editor ofThe Age,The Sunday AgeandHerald Sun.

READERS RESPONSES TO THE ARTICLE RIDING ROUGHSHOD:_________________________________________________________________________________________

All taxpayers pay to use roadsWhile it is welcome that Bruce Guthrie considers that increased bicycle separation from other forms of traffic will be beneficial to improving road safety (Opinion, 5/2), it is unfortunate that he regurgitates the (car driver) statement that they ''fork out hundreds of dollars a year for the right to use the road'', as this is untrue. Roads are not paid for by car registration fees, they are funded by various levels of taxation, by all taxpayers, not just drivers; paying your rego does not give you the right to be on the road, your driver's licence does.

The problem he highlights is that cycling does not provide ongoing additional tax revenue, such as that of fuel for cars. However, this is offset by the reduction in wear and tear of the road by people who choose to cycle rather than drive. Can we please have an article that doesn't have a car driver good/cyclist bad standpoint or vice versa, and stick to positive suggestions?

NEIL EVEREST, Ascot Vale_________________________________________________________________________________________

Guthrie just fanning flames of hostilityBruce Guthrie's opinion piece will simply serve to fan the flames of the increasingly hostile relationship between cyclists and drivers. Yes, some cyclists break the road rules and should be fined. But the reason cyclists are sometimes aggro is that when cars and bikes collide, they are the ones who are killed or injured, regardless of fault. Bruce should note the article in last week'sSunday Agethat stated drivers were at fault 87 per cent of the time based on analysis of camera footage. I suggest he commutes to work by bike for a month and then reflects on his views - I reckon they would change dramatically.

ADRIAN MOORREES, Beaumaris_________________________________________________________________________________________

One-sided anecdotes do a discourtesyAs a cyclist who clocks up about 5000 kilometres per year on Victorian roads, my experience is that the great majority of motorists are courteous and thoughtful towards cyclists. There is undoubtedly a minority of cyclists and motorists who flout the law or are aggressive to each other. But it is not helpful to beat up the issue using a few one-sided anecdotes, as Bruce Guthrie has done. As for cyclists paying registration fees, motor registration fees in Victoria provide less than half of VicRoads' income of $2 billion, so road users are heavily subsidised from general tax revenue. Most cyclists own a car and hence are already paying registration. But I would happily pay a bike registration fee in return for an extensive network of on-road bike lanes that cannot be used for car parking and that do not end suddenly at intersections and elsewhere.

MICHAEL HASSETT, Blackburn_________________________________________________________________________________________

Let's adopt Europe's maturityBruce Guthrie is correct in identifying that ongoing conflicts between cyclists and motorists will continue unless appropriate infrastructure is built. However, registering cyclists and charging a fee is not the way to reduce accidents and to raise funds for bicycle lanes. In Amsterdam, Berlin and Copenhagen, where bicycle fatalities are among the lowest in the world, such schemes have not been introduced, yet they have an enormous and successful bicycle network. Perhaps the Europeans are simply more mature on this issue.

RUSSELL McGILTON, Clifton Hill_________________________________________________________________________________________

Cyclists must be accountable''Riding Roughshod'' encapsulates beautifully the picture played out daily on our roads. Bruce Guthrie's observations, and suggestions, should be heeded by authorities. For example, rules for cyclists are not public knowledge. For everyone's safety, they need to be. Only then will cyclists be accountable for their behaviour, as are motorists, pedestrians and motorcyclists. They are not being targeted, just being treated as other road users. They should not baulk at that. After all, they seek equality.

VANDA DRAZENOVIC, Sandringham_________________________________________________________________________________________

LETS SETTLE THIS:SHOULD CYCLISTS HAVE TO BE REGISTERED TO USE PUBLIC ROADS?14 Aug 2014Source: The Courier-Mailhttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/lets-settle-this-should-cyclists-have-to-be-registered-to-use-public-roads/story-e6frg6n6-1227023088794_________________________________________________________________________________________

Answering YES...

CHRIS BARTLETTAs a person who rides a bike and reads plenty of ill-considered social media posts by cloth-eared drivers, I would love to pay rego. Just to shut them up.

MICHELLE COLLINSCyclists shouldnt get a free ride. If they want to take over the road then they should at least pay for the privilege. And while were on the topic - mobility scooters are a danger to pedestrians and shoppers so also slap them with a registration fee. At least that way I can track down which one tried to mow me down at the Myer sale.

BEN DORRIESThis is the wrong argument. Forget about whether cyclists should be registered before they are allowed on public roads, Lets talk about whether they should be allowed on public roads at all! I dont think they should. Roads are for cars, not for bicycles. And the vast majority of cyclists, in my experience, show little courtesy or awareness for cars, motorbikes, trucks and whatever else is on the road. Cyclists live in their own little world. Ban them from roads altogether. There are plenty of cycling tracks, cycle-friendly footpaths, velodromes and other places where cyclists can do their thing. Get off our roads!

MEGAN MORRISRegistered on roads but not on bike paths because I think I need to know all the road rules. I dont think cyclists are a problem but I dont think our roads are designed for bikes so we need to do something about that otherwise were going to kill more people.

ROBERTA MATLOCKDefinitely. Theyre a vehicle and theyre part of the road system. they need to know and we need to know theyre following the same rules. If the roads were better set up for cyclists, we wouldnt need that.

Answering NO...

GEOFFREY WILLSONThis is a ridiculous suggestion, just like the stupid compulsory helmet laws. No country in Europe imposes a registration/licence fee or makes cyclists wear helmets. The only reason these measures are being seriously considered here is to push cyclists off the roads and back into their cars where registration and fuel taxes can be collected. Stupid politicians think they can get away with taxing cyclists because if they are not using overpriced public transport or fuel excise they are not contributing to tax revenue. That is their only justification for this proposal.

JACKIE SINNERTONBike rego would only add to the states obesity problems. People who have the get up and go to ride to work every day deserve to have free space on the roads. Slap extra costs on the cyclist and they will leave the bike at home, hop in the car and add to the traffic congestion. Im all for making life easier and cheaper for those who are trying to stay fit and healthy and look after the environment.

HARRY CLARKEMy initial response was yes, absolutely they should, but now Im feeling a little more philosophical about this. Mandatory registration for cyclists would just create more rules and expenses in a world where there are already far too many. Can we not just jump on a pushy and duck down to the shops, crossing a few roads and footpaths on the way, without legislative permission? Should we be required to pay to use infrastructure weve already funded? At that rate, wed eventually need a licence to walk down a public footpath, or pay to use a public toilet! Oh wait

WENDY HUGHESIt is generally motorists who create danger on the roads and cause pollution. Motorists should respect cyclists. The world would be a much better place with more cyclists on the road and fewer motorists. We need to encourage cycling, not discourage it. And, just for the record, I drive every day, and sadly cycle only once or twice a month, so I am speaking more as a motorist than a cyclist myself.

HELEN TSITOURISIm a cyclist. I do pay registration to use roads and part of that goes to fix roads, i.e. potholes damaged by heavy-vehicle use. A bicycle does not cause the amount of damage that a vehicle does. The people who keep saying cyclists are not allowed on the roads are those who have disregard for the law. Cyclists are already allowed on roads. Under the Queensland Road Rules bicycles are considered vehicles, so people riding bicycles must obey all the general road rules.

As legitimate road users, they have the same rights and responsibilities as other vehicle operators.

CHRIS MCMAHONWhat an absolutely ridiculous idea! Where does it stop? Do we go ahead and make little Timmy down the road register to learn how to ride his bike? Does he have to pay more because he has training wheels like a road train has to pay more? This topic, like a wedgie at a cliff-diving competition, really gets up the bum of people. I dont understand when we went from a nation of shell be right mates, to a group of bickering children. Both sides argue back and forth and on and on. Just get on with it! Dont drive like an idiot and ride your bike where youre supposed to.

MARILENA HEWITTIts annoying to register. Cyclists can be annoying but its too hard to police and I hate registering for stuff.

DANA PETRIEWhile I think that its a good idea that more people do cycle, I think its ridiculous that they dont obey the road rules. I dont think they need to be registered, but maybe go through some form of training to understand that you cant zip in-and-out of traffic, because its dangerous.

ERIN SIMMONDSI think that cyclists are an important part of our culture and community in Brisbane and I think that we need to promote that and get them to cycle more.

DAVID HECKENBERGCyclists arent putting anyone else on the road at risk; they only need to be responsible for themselves.

- 27 -