It is human nature – when you are aware and think of a particular topic, you tend to find things related to that topic in the world around you.  Even so, my eyes kinda bugged out of my head when I ran across an article about a New Jersey lawmaker Cleopatra Tucker wanted mandatory license plates for bicycles.

Umm…  wasn’t I just talking about this just the other day?  The motivation for this bill was identical to what I speculated about in my previous post:

That, anyway, is the basic outline of a bill (A3657) introduced by Assemblywoman Cleopatra Tucker (D-Essex) who said she proposed it after several senior citizens in Belleville and Bloomfield called her to complain about kids on bikes.

“They had been knocked down, knocked over and they had no way to register a complaint. They couldn’t identify the person,” said Tucker.

Efforts to license bicycles almost always seem to stem from a belief that cyclists are anonymous, and thus unaccountable for their actions.  However, bicycle licensing doesn’t really address the issue.  For one thing, bikes are much less expensive than cars, and thus are more likely to be loaned, borrowed, or sold at garage sales for $15 bucks.  How do you account for every change of ownership?  If you are already frustrated with crowded DMV offices now – can you imagine this additional overhead?  And just like a car, the license plate tells you who owns the bicycle, not who may have been riding it at the time when an infraction occurred.

Luckily cooler heads prevailed, and the legislation was withdrawn.  However, this continues to come up again and again.

I’ve received some interesting responses – both directly and indirectly – about my recent post titled ‘Anti-bike Propaganda.’  In that article, I picked random comments made by folks on various websites, forums and news posts.  All of the quoted comments – by design – had a decidedly anti-cycling flavor.

I’ve now taken some time to ponder some of the responses, and I think I’ll start selectively addressing some of the statements I collected.  The first statement I’d like to examine deals with the issue of bicycle registration, or licensing

Share the road. Make insurance mandatory along with license plates on bicycles, they can cause accidents just as cars, and be used in crimes just like cars so the laws should be made “center of the road” so it is equal for both parties using the road. Simple.

I decided to approach this issue due to a timely posting by BikingInLA regarding Santa Monica’s own current bicycle registration requirements.  As with most bicycle registration programs that have been employed, the intent is usually to assist in identifying the rightful owners of recovered stolen bikes.  Clearly, however, this is not the intent of the comment quoted above.

This is evidenced by the combination of licensing and insurance in the same clause: “Make insurance mandatory along with license plates on bicycles.”  It sounds as if this person believes that cyclists are not accountable for property damages they may cause, and that insurance and licensing would somehow address this issue.

It is not clear to me at all how a license plate would do anything to change the legal liabilities of cyclists to compensate for damages they cause.  My opinion is that the inclusion of a license plate requirement demonstrates a lack of understanding of bicycles as vehicles.  For example – are we going to require that every 3 or 4 year old’s bicycle be registered?  What about their tricycle?  Big Wheel?  What about transfers of registration at sale?  State motor vehicle department’s funding often comes – in large part – from tax dollars.  When you can easily find used bicycles at garage sales for $25 or less, sale of bicycles obviously happens at a lot faster rate than sale of cars – and would thus require a significantly larger investment in tax dollars to support.

I suspect that the insurance comment actually hits a lot closer to the target this comment’s author was aiming for – holding cyclists accountable for damages they cause.

This would seem to imply a perception by this person that there are no laws that hold a cyclist accountable – and that is simply not true.  First off, everyone is legally responsible for damages they cause no matter how they cause them.  Secondly, it is extremely difficult for me to cause any significant amount of monetary loss due to use of my bike.  If I hit the side of your parked car with my bike, the physical amount of damage I can cause is simply limited.  It is very very likely that any financial compensation due to the property owner would fall below the deductible of a liability insurance policy anyhow.  In other words, except in rare case, liability insurance would seem to be irrelevant to most bicycle caused accidents.

The real kicker for me here, however, is that most cyclists actually are covered by insurance (even though they may not know it).  In fact, a cyclist may actually have more coverage for liability cause by an accident than your average motorist.  There are two potential insurance policies that can cover a cyclist in this scenario:  vehicle liability coverage, and homeowner’s or renters insurance.  The latter – a homeowner’s or renter’s policy – is a sure bet.  If you’ve got one, our almost guaranteed some sort of coverage for liabilities due if you damage someone else’s property while riding your bicycle.  Your vehicle liability policy may be a little trickier to work out – and will vary by state.  However, you may be surprised to find out that often bicycles do indeed fall under the general umbrella of “vehicle,” and thus can be covered by your auto insurance.

Ultimately this person’s statement feel like a straw-man argument – an excuse to not respect cyclists when they are on the road.

The UCI licensing board has announced the recipients of the latest batch of 4 year ProTour licenses.  A ProTour license allows teams a spot in all ProTour races, setting the stage for a team’s season.

Most of the teams are current ProTour license holders, reapplying when their 4 year license expired.  However, two teams – BMC and Luxembourg Pro Cycling Project – are new to the ProTour ranks.

BMC competed last season with Pro Continental status.  While holding a ProTour license gets you in the races, lack of one doesn’t necessarily keep you out.  Instead, non-ProTour teams can try for one of the wildcard spots.  Now, BMC does not have to worry about trying to get those wildcard spots.

If ever there was a shoe-in to receive a license, however, the Luxembourg Pro Cycling Project may just be it.  Consisting of Frank & Andy Schleck, Stuart O’Grady, and Jens Voigt among others, the team is poised to be a powerhouse next season.  There is still a possibility that Fabian Cancellara will also join his former Saxo Bank teammates.

With the two new additions came two teams that were denied their applications – Geox-TMC and Cofidis.

Geox-TMC has been particularly vocal about the decision.  Their roster would seem up to par on paper.  They’ve got Carlos Sastre – 2008 Tour de France winner – and Denis Menchov.  Menchov as among his palmares a 2009 win at the Giro, and a 2010 podim finish in the Tour de France.

From their own website, the UCI’s mission is;

The International Cycling Union (UCI) is cycling’s International Federation recognised by the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The UCI was founded in Paris in 1900.

The UCI administers and promotes the development of the eight disciplines of cycling all around the world (road, track, mountain bike, BMX, para-cycling, cyclo-cross, trials and indoor cycling). Over the last 10 years, the UCI has intensified its development activities on all five continents.

The UCI’s mission is to develop and promote cycling, in close collaboration with National Federations, be it as a competition sport and its associated values (effort, well-being and fair play), as a healthy recreational activity or as a means of transport.