Should all road users pay road tax? If so, how much should it be for cyclists ?

Not all cyclists do what you have seen. I bristle at the antics of those scofflaws for it makes my life more difficult on the road....

"Cyclists are supposed to dismount if using pedestrian street crossings....."

Kinda make it pretty useless to be cycling then if you have to stop and get off every 200 feet eh?

As a driver and a cyclist, I've been arguing with myself since this thread started.

Anyway, the blunt reality of it is, that as a cyclist, I stand a far greater chance of death or serious injury by not following the rules of the road vs riding like I'm supposed to.

Butt, just to focus the debate, its about some sort of road tax, and should cyclists be included.

Yes, and yes.

Thanks for you time.

Deank wrote:"Cyclists are supposed to dismount if using pedestrian street crossings....."

Kinda make it pretty useless to be cycling then if you have to stop and get off every 200 feet eh?

that is if one is crossing to the other side after riding on the street.......there are some intersections where it is better to dismount and be a pedestrian for a few minutes.....sorry, that is what i am referring to......

One way of getting the "tax" for cyclists is to have it as an added cost to the price of a bike. If a cyclist is purchasing a bike at a local bike store, retail outlet, etc. proof of address could be asked for and if the address is a Winnipeg address on the driver's license then an additional charge of XX.00 is added to the price of the bike. This would not be applicable to children's sidewalk bikes but to any bike over 16" wheel base. This could also be applied to bikes being purchased at the bike auction. It is one way of getting some of the money. You will always have people who will find a way to side step this scenario by whatever means possible.
Also take into consideration that when money is being put forth to make the roadways better for cyclists, these are the same roadways that the cars are using so both are benefitting from the upgrade. If they are repaving the road to make it safe, it would be the whole road and then the bike lane would be painted onto the new pavement.
I too am both a cyclist and vehicle commuter and would like to see the roads improved not only for the cyclist in me but also for the safety of the driving I have to do. I find it extremely dangerous to be driving my car down a road that I know is extremely bumpy, which throws me around in my car and then I encounter a cyclist who is on the same stretch of road, dodging these "repaired" potholes, causing cars to have to slam on their brakes and weave aroung them. One example is St James between St Mathews and Wellington in the curb lane northbound, it is rough enough to make a pregnant woman go into labour. I have seen way too many near misses on this stretch of road than I would like to and have complained numerous times to the city to no avail as the street has not seen any repairs.

Miz point wrote:

Deank wrote:"Cyclists are supposed to dismount if using pedestrian street crossings....."

Kinda make it pretty useless to be cycling then if you have to stop and get off every 200 feet eh?

that is if one is crossing to the other side after riding on the street.......there are some intersections where it is better to dismount and be a pedestrian for a few minutes.....sorry, that is what i am referring to......

well what I am referring to is that the moment they are riding on the sidewalk they should have to stop dismount and walk across every intersection.

Would or would that not make riding the bike pretty damn frustrating and close to useless as a way of commuting or hell even just going out for a pleasure ride?

I get it. So, a cyclist riding on the sidewalk wouldn't (or at least in theory) convert back and forth from a pedestrian to using hte roadway, depending on the path of least resistance. I agree, make up your mind, one way or another.

When you buy tires you are assessed a per tire fee!
I don't think bike riders should be charged anything! They are certainly cutting down on CO2 emissions, and are getting healthier, so both things cut down on expenses , and is good.
The whole idea of trying to collect additional taxes, if any local city government would try to assess, would have to be done through a licensing law, and then you have to collect it.
Collection could be done, but why bother? Just put a bigger fee for owning guns, that should work!

rosencrentz wrote:When you buy tires you are assessed a per tire fee!
I don't think bike riders should be charged anything! They are certainly cutting down on CO2 emissions, and are getting healthier, so both things cut down on expenses , and is good.
The whole idea of trying to collect additional taxes, if any local city government would try to assess, would have to be done through a licensing law, and then you have to collect it.
Collection could be done, but why bother? Just put a bigger fee for owning guns, that should work!

hey now... lay off my fire arms. It is my right as a human being to feed myself and my family and to protect us from harm. I choose to do so with fire arms.

Riding a bike or driving a car is not a necessity for survival. Weapons are.

With additional tax on firearms, it would be a detriment to people who have to deal with errant cyclists.

St Norberter wrote:

LivingDead wrote:
Insurance. Cyclists need insurance and they need to follow the laws of the road. Think about it. MPI has crazy rates for motorcyclists. The rates for non-powed cycles should be frigging astronomical if you use MPI's though processes.

Do you know why they have crazy rates for motorcycles? Because their insurance model assigns all costs related to motorcycle accidents to motorcycle accidents to motorcycle class regardless of who is at fault (car/motorcycle). If MPIs model was fair and representative, motorcycle costs should go down and vehicle costs should go up.
As for pedestrian/cyclist collisions. If a cyclist causes a pedestrian injury - should they be held responsible? yes, if they are responsible for the accident.
Hypothetically, if I am riding on a sidewalk and I ride into a pedestrian, then yes it is my fault and I should be held responsible. But what about the more common scenario? Where the pedestrian steps off the curb in fron tof the cyclist without looking ( or better yet, looking and stepping off anyway), or a cyclist passing a pedestrian on a MUP on the left and calling 'on your left' and/or using a horn/bell and having the pedestrian walk right in front of them anyway? Do we licence and insure pedestrians as well?

Actually...that's not true.
Apparently, a local motorcycle club was having a fundraising dinner.
They invited the director of MPIC to come speak to the members and answer some questions.
She showed up...and before she was supposed to go on...the organizer wanted to prep her so offered a couple of questions she would be surely asked during the Q&A.
One of which was: "Why are motorcycle rates so high?"
Her response: "Stop right there...if I had it MY way...we'd raise the rates so high, NOBODY would be able to afford it, and all those things would be taken off the road".

They politely asked her to leave without speaking to the crowd.

Apparently...there's many people who feel the same way...and unfortunately, they seem to be the ones deciding the rates.

....and you believe that she was that stupid...to say those things in front of that guy?? Wear a helmet eh!

A friend of mine told me about it last week, and I've no reason not to believe him...he was there.

It should be noted that MPIC does not even set motorcycle rates. PUB does. MPIC applies for rate increases or decreases and PUB approves, denies or changes them.

PUB has insisted that all vehicles be reponsible for their own class of accidents regardless of blame.
PUB has denied some Motorcycle increases, but they have also actually insisted on higher ones.

Wont be long and PUB will be insisting that low income familes get a break on insurace,

Off topic, but car insurance should be based on both make/model AND mileage driven like in California. Why would someone who only commutes on weekends to the cottage pay the same as the person driving back and forth to work every week day and also on weekends. The more time on the road = more chances of an accident. Its as simple as that.

we have (or at least had, I am assuming we still have) pleasure class in Manitoba as well

also cars that commute to or live in Winnipeg pay more then cars NOT used in winnipeg

AGEsAces wrote:

Actually...that's not true.
Apparently, a local motorcycle club was having a fundraising dinner.
They invited the director of MPIC to come speak to the members and answer some questions.
She showed up...and before she was supposed to go on...the organizer wanted to prep her so offered a couple of questions she would be surely asked during the Q&A.
One of which was: "Why are motorcycle rates so high?"
Her response: "Stop right there...if I had it MY way...we'd raise the rates so high, NOBODY would be able to afford it, and all those things would be taken off the road".

They politely asked her to leave without speaking to the crowd.

Apparently...there's many people who feel the same way...and unfortunately, they seem to be the ones deciding the rates.

The Director?

Are you referring to the CEO? If so, I find that surprising as her husband used to ( and may still) own a motorcycle.

I could ask my friend next time I see him for clarification.

I know he said the person was a "she", and some top person at MPIC.

And just cause her husband may own a motorcycle...doesn't mean she's not against them (in fact it may encourage her more to raise the rates)...especially if one of her perks for working there is free (or discounted) insurance for her family.

AGEsAces wrote:I could ask my friend next time I see him for clarification.

I know he said the person was a "she", and some top person at MPIC.

And just cause her husband may own a motorcycle...doesn't mean she's not against them (in fact it may encourage her more to raise the rates)...especially if one of her perks for working there is free (or discounted) insurance for her family.

I can understand the thinking behind a statement like that though ( not saying that I agree with it). Compare the average claim costs of an accident between car and motorcycle. I think the cost per claim for a motorcycle would be much higher than the average cost per claim per car/truck, simply because the risk of physical injury is greater in a motorcycle accident than a car accident.

Is one of the perks of working there free or discounted insurance? This is the first time I've ever heard that suggested. Do you have a source or is it just speculation.

Considering the CEO rides her bike to work quite often,( and that it is a CEO position with the remuneration to go along with it) I can't see that being an issue.

AGEsAces wrote:

Actually...that's not true.
Apparently, a local motorcycle club was having a fundraising dinner.
They invited the director of MPIC to come speak to the members and answer some questions.
She showed up...and before she was supposed to go on...the organizer wanted to prep her so offered a couple of questions she would be surely asked during the Q&A.
One of which was: "Why are motorcycle rates so high?"
Her response: "Stop right there...if I had it MY way...we'd raise the rates so high, NOBODY would be able to afford it, and all those things would be taken off the road".

They politely asked her to leave without speaking to the crowd.

Apparently...there's many people who feel the same way...and unfortunately, they seem to be the ones deciding the rates.

So you are suggesting that they set the rates based on personal preference?
These large insurance companies have actuaries that determine the cost per claim and where rates should be. I wouldn't be surprised if automobile insurance premiums are actually subsidizing motorcycle claims.

just speculation (about the perks).

I don't know how the rates are set...and perhaps the motorcycle medical claims are higher...but the damage/liability claims can't be higher.

and the frequency certainly can't be higher, as for about 6 months of the year, most bikes aren't even on the road.

i don't know if you'd consider it (and by you I mean generic to everyone) better or worse...but MPIC basic coverage actually covers damage to your vehicle, whether you're at fault or not.

So, for example, I pay about $1200/year for my vehicle...with minimal coverage (except for a reduced deductible).
In NJ, I was paying at one time over $2400/year for basic coverage...and that was JUST for liability...which means if I hit someone, it pays the other guy, but does nothing for me or my vehicle. The only way I was covered is by paying comprehensive insurance (another $1000/year for me), or hope I get hit instead of the other way around.
Now...it also depends on the company used, as I switched companies and got FULL coverage for only $900/year...but had to have a perfect driving record for 5 years before I could even apply...and that's hard to do when you're young/inexperienced.

The pleasure class only allows for 3 or 4 commutes a week and only reduces your insurance by maybe 200$ a year, so its just not worth it.

Triathlon68 wrote:The pleasure class only allows for 3 or 4 commutes a week and only reduces your insurance by maybe 200$ a year, so its just not worth it.

Unless you're on welfare... $200 is three cartons of cigarettes and a case of beer. How insensitive!

Why not just have a useage fee. If you use the road you pay a toll fee, If you use the sidewalk you pay a toll fee. If you want to drive and walk for free get the frick out of the city.

Simple. That way it is fair to everyone. Sorry, welfare bums are no exception.

Triathlon68 wrote:The pleasure class only allows for 3 or 4 commutes a week and only reduces your insurance by maybe 200$ a year, so its just not worth it.

"Pleasure" use provides for occasional commutes to work, say once a month.