Why don't bikers pay rego? These cunts literally have their

Your thought process is absolutely absurd. If we go on like this, then people who walk would have to pay rego on their shoes for sidewalks. It's utterly stupid. There are basic services that the government is expected to provide from general taxes, and infrastructure for walking and bicycling in built up areas is one of them.

>>16768401
you are mistaken
that lane is for parked cars to open their door

File: Learn the bloody difference.gif (2MB, 399x171px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 399x171px

They should at least be licensed so you can guarantee a minimum level of knowledge about how to use a road.

>>16768424
The USA has drivers licenses for cars, and they still don't know how to use a road.

>>16768424
so kids should need licenses to ride bikes?

>>16768428
we i was in primary school we actually HAD to take a bicycle test.

>>16768431
what kind of nanny state country do you live in

>>16768428
Yeah if they're riding them in the fucking street

>>16768440
We also have swimming license tests that generally every kid takes in elementary school or middle school in the process of learning how to swim, though they only matter if you want to become a rescue swimmer because they attest your swimming and diving performance and the better ones include first aid skills.

>>16768440
Educating people on the rules of the road is a good thing.

>>16768424
the road rules would need to be made more consistent and conducive to traffic flow
>>16768428
at least teach them how to fix them

>>16768401
why do niggers get to use the same bathroom?

they don't cause damage
you don't pay to use roads you pay to maintain them.

>>16768440
Switzerland my dude

here in the UK cyclists pay for road maintenance out of normal taxes, not VED, so the argument that they don't pay for the road is only made by very stupid people.

>>16768401
Where I live, a percentage of sales taxes also go to improving roads and infrastructure. Sure they don't pay the road tax for rego, or on the fuel they don't use, but they still buy other stuff to live, and a bicycle (even most normal cars for that matter) don't wear out roads.

My only gripe is that they don't follow the laws for cars if they are on the road, often skirt lights, ride up on sidewalks, so on an so forth. Legally where i live, they must decide to be a "pedestrian" or a "vehicle" but they cannot change back and forth when its convenient.

People on bikes that change between sidewalks and lanes to skirt lights and avoid traffic cause a lot of accidents (useful to note that lane splitting is illegal here too).

Its not the people that use a bike to commute that bug me : its all the people on 5000 dollar bikes in their stupid tour de-france get ups that look over their shoulder, ride in packs in the center of lanes, and go 20 under the speed limit and wont move over to let cars pass holding up traffic for 20-40 cars.

The opposite is also true that if the speed limit is really low like a residential area, i find those same pricks like to ride my bumper and "draft" so close that if I even tap the brakes they would hit me then bitch about it, god forbid some kid or dog runs out in front of me.

The gist of this is that the few pricks taint our opinions of cyclists.

>>16768428
If they want to ride on the road and be considered part of traffic, then yes, absolutely.

>>16769265
Delete your trip and kill yourself my main man

>>16768401
Because cyclists take up 1/10th the space of a car, weigh about 20 times less and don't emit noxious gasses into the air.

/thread

>>16768412
You know you are liable for any injury or damage when opening a door to any traffic (including cyclists), right?