The issue of who pays for what is germane, in an ideal situation, fees & charges levied on a particular section of the community would all be quarantined & devoted to areas relevant to that group. Unfortunately, politicians being the duplicitious grubs they are, taxes invariably get siphoned into consolidated revenue, and somewhere down the track when the parasites through their own ineptitude, run the well dry, the cry goes out to make users pay. Its convenient to ignore the fact that the users are already paying through the nose, often several times over as is the case with motorists.

Whether or not cyclists already make some contribution to road maintenance through other vehicle registration, many car owners already pay multiple registration fees despite being able to operate only one vehicle at a time. This being the case, there is every reason why cyclists should also make a contribution in respect of their bicycle & this would also cover the insurance issue. Furthermore, no law-abiding cyclist would object to being identifiable would they ?? The bikeways matter as raised by Poirot is quite simply a load of male bovine dropping. Why indeed should motorists contribute to something of no use or relevance to them ?? Motorists are already regarded as milch-cows by gubmunts at all levels and there is no way known they would agree to something so nonsensical. Cyclists presently pay diddley-squat (lets not get into any registration fees they may pay, thats a completely different matter), so it only fair they get to wear some of the financial pain inflicted on us by the bloodsucking parasites.

Three things here, praxidice:

1) As I understand it, vehicle registration does not pay for the maintenance of roads. I confess, though, that most sources that point this out are cycling lobby groups, so they may not be entirely accurate. I've yet to see evidence to refute this, though, and the government websites dedicated to vehicle registration tend to refer vaguely to 'administrative costs' when talking about where rego goes. That said, your point about multiple vehicles is an interesting one. Given that a substantial chunk of the cost of registration is dedicated to CTP, perhaps insuring the driver rather than the vehicle is a better way to go. After all, if I have five cars, I can only drive one at a time and so I constitute no greater risk to the public.

2) When talking about cycling infrastructure, you say that it is 'of no use or relevance' to motorists. I disagree. Such infrastructure would be built to take cyclists off roads. Cyclists are, at present, legal road users and don't object to using roads. It's the motorists who want them gone, so it's the motorists who benefit from their removal. The question is equally valid: why should cyclists pay for the privilege of having their access to roads removed?

3) I'm perfectly happy to pay rego for my bike, as long as EVERY bike that ever sets tyres on the road is required to be registered. That includes the bikes of little toddlers who do inane circuits in quiet suburban streets. After all, I was a far more substantial road hazard as a kid than I am now.

prax the moderator owns the site;.
Constructed by a group in fact that thinks giving us such a site is worth while.
We all have had threads rejected, that makes it what it is, one of the very best.
Are you contributing to its upkeep? Most cyclists have a drivers license in their back pocket.
Yes some are not considering others.
As do pedestrians and? motorists.

Why shouldn't bicycles that go onto any designated road or public area be required to pay registration with compulsory insurance to cover injuries to other persons?

Why shouldn't there be a licence and testing regime for cyclists who go onto any designated road or public area?

Why shouldn't all bicycles that go onto any designated road or public area be reauired to always carry and display a number plate?

A bicycle is a vehicle and the rider is subject to road laws, including the offence of being in charge while undet the influence of a a drug or alcohol.

Why should cyclists who offend, examples being not having a cycle in roadworthy condition, and going through stop signs and red lights be able to thumb their noses at the laws because they not have a unique identifying number plate?

Restricted blanket approvals for children can easily be devised, but up until they obtain their adult licence they should travel at slow speed on and beside walkways, giving right of way to pedestrians at all times.

Legislators might wish to consider restricted licences for child and youths to certain routes for the purposes of education, training or work.

Otokonoko

The whole revenue / who pays for what circus is a minefield, mostly due to moronic politicians who couldn't run a chook raffle. Gubmunt websites are more about wool-pulling than fact. Only about half the registration fee goes to CTP (at least in Queensland anyway) however your point about paying for the same cover on multiple vehicles is perfectly sensible, in fact I've thrown that around several times without the relevant muppets looking even remotely interested, but thats only one of a zillion reasons I habitually refer to them as bloodsucking parasites.

I don't buy your argument re motorists funding bikeways, cyclists should pay their own way.

My main objective of registering bicycles is identification, revenue is a secondary matter. Note however its unimaginable that a gubmunt that figures it can siphon money off something will neglect to do so.

What about leisure, onthebeach? Are you suggesting that kids should not be allowed to ride their bikes like most of us did as kids: for fun? To get to their friends' places? To get to footy training?