This is taken from the following link:

http://www.executivestyle.com.au/18-reasons-why-registering-bicycles-is-a-bad-idea-1m23gh

I think that registering either the riders or the bikes
would produce the same problems.

Experts have studied this issue in depth and Motoring
organisations such as RACV, RACQ, and NRMA don't support
bicycle (nor driver) rego.

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 helped fund the road
they're on.

Implementing a scheme of registering the riders , the same
as the bikes, would be massively expensive. We're talking a
sizeable or expanded bureaucracy to process the more than
millions of riders out there. Also the administration costs
would guzzle the fees. A NSW Government Report says that
the 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 blow out - the
funds would come out of everyone's pockets not just bike
riders.

The article tells us that bike riding is good for the economy.
It eases conjestion, 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.

There's more on the website that you can read. But you get
the idea.

' Bikes were here first. It is cars that are the interlopers on our roads'

actually pedestrian and horses were here before bikes. You generally don't see these acting foolishly on roads.

Dear runner,

If we allowed horses on our already conjested roads
we'd have a different kind of pollution problem.

As usual there is always a hidden agenda behind everything the govt does or proposes. I elude to the recent extra charge/s on our vehicle registration fees, and other areas as well. We are told that it has to do with 'one vehicle' crashes ie; where there is no other vehicle involved. This came about mainly because of bikes getting knocked over and the riders have suffered serious injuries. I have always maintained that as long as there is a registered vehicle in the mix then the cyclist is covered by the registration of the vehicle in question, but no that's not good enough so we all get slugged another $100 or so because of a few morons who want to play Russian roulette with their lives. How stupid must you guys be, and that includes the polys, to insist on committing suicide? I continue to advise these gutless polys to remove cyclists from major arteries and force them to use the back/side streets. I am fed up with the politics of all this. A bunch of whinging, noisy, brainless, morons are telling the other 99% what to do. YOU ARE THE MINORITY AND YOU ARE WRONG! The majority of urban roads, (major roads) in this country were designed to barely cater to one vehicle let alone two. It is sheer madness on the part of the polys to suggest vehicles must leave a one metre gap or more from a cyclist when they are passing. A METRE? Fools the lot of you. I will hold my line and obviously not wanting to go anywhere near the cyclist but nobody told them not to weave in front of passing traffic. If I hit one I am immediately the guilty party, no way! So the moral of this story is, if you want to play in the traffic, then YOU suffer the consequences, and I do mean suffer!

Every now and then I find myself at a disadvantage with a truck.
Am I going to argue?
I find it more prudent to give way for a number of obvious reasons.
Now my car doesn't mind bikes, however bikes would do well to imitate my stance with the trucks....it's called getting along

One problem is many bike users don't obey the road rules. That is the problem I see too often.