I agree. This is one of the silliest agruments I have ever read.Andy G wrote:You know the answer why, as well as I do.Mintbread wrote: They have insurance, so I don't care what they do.
You still haven't answered my question as to why a motorcyclist has to pay to use the road (via registration and insurance) and a bicyclist doesn't.
Cuz that's how the laws are written.
Besides...you gonna make a 8 year old register and insure their Schwinn?
There are many differences between bicycles and motorcycles that warrant the later paying insurance and registration while the former does not. Starting with 1. BIKES ARE NOT MOTORIZED VEHICLES.
2. They are light (cause no damage to the roads while a motorcycle does damage roads).
3. They do not pollute (whilst a motorcycle Does). I'm sure this has less bearing on the matter though.
4. Other reasons I can't think of right now 'cause I'm just baffled that someone has to argue this point.
The government tries to ENCOURAGE people to ride bikes rather than cars when possible. It has nothing to do with how many other vehicles the person owns/ pays insurance on or whether the person is driving to work or for leisure.
You REALLY think that every Tom Dick and Mary needs to pay registration and insurance to go out for a stroll on their bike? No joke? You _really_ think that? It's people like you who get into politocs and screw everything up. Lets tell all the bicycle owners to get registered and insured (or just tell them they can't ride on the roads). That ought to help eliminate bicycles and help global warming and obesity along their way.
