Okay, make it $50/year to cover the cost of administration, you get a registration plate like every other road user, and you are bound by the rules the rest of us have to follow. Break the rules - and many cyclists break the rules - you can be traced and fined, just like the rest of us. Why should cyclists be exempt? Your other comment still doesn’t cover the cost of compensation when the cyclist is at fault. Cyclist breezes through an intersection and injures a pedestrian - who pays then?

Found the cyclist.

Why shouldn’t every road user pay a share of the cost? Even the perception of some people not paying a share creates bad feeling and negative attitudes. Wear and tear aren’t the only costs to maintenance. There’s running costs like street lighting, traffic lights - and don’t cyclists always pay attention to those? I see just as many cyclists breaking road rules as car drivers. Breeze through a stop sign? Sure, I’m a cyclist, it doesn’t apply to me. Ride single file? Fuck off, we’ll ride three abreast and screw traffic flow. Get off your high horse. If cyclists stood to lose their registration through fines, they might behave a bit better.

Fault in accidents is not based on “the driver is basically always responsible”, but by established principles of evidence and wtinesses. Thank fuck. I’m aware of this principle thank you very much, I ride a motorcycle and I’m well aware of the selective vision of car drivers.

So tax cyclists a nominal amount. $10/year.

Hang on , though. Tell me - because I don’t know - who pays for cyclist injury compensation? e.g. Car and cyclist collide, cyclist is taken off to hospital where they <sadly> lose a foot. Those who pay the third-party personal injury component of vehicle registration are covered for compensation for that sort of injury. Where would a cyclist’s compensation come from?

And if it comes from the same insurance pool as motorists, why aren’t cyclists contributing?

FWIW I’m the most polite and respectful motorist when it comes to cyclists, but if they’re using the road, they should share the cost. Even a nominal amount would be good. Right now they get to use the road without contributing like other road users.

Skinjob.

www.live365.com/listen

No account or subscription required.

Hundreds of internet radio stations. Some are ad-supported, some are ad-free but you can contribute to the station’s patreon.

I’m curious to know who is going to pay to keep it airworthy, if DT does leave office? Those things aren’t cheap to maintain.

If he leaves office he won’t be in a position to grant political favours to friends.

Got a nice fibre-optic connection, have you? Try throttling that to <10Mbps and you might understand what some people have to deal with. DSL at 10Mbps from an evil corporation, or 150Mbps from an evil corporation, hmmmmm, what a choice.

It’s easy to shit on the owner, but have some sympathy for folk who don’t have a reasonable alternative.

Thank you so much ! /s Come and join me where the options are many and the price is so cheap. /s /s

If you’d like to experience what it’s like to access the internet sans Starlink, perhaps you could just throttle your modem to 8 or even 10 Mbps. Yes? No? Then consider how lucky you are, and have some empathy for those of us who have little or no alternative.

I invite you to join me in rural Australia, and choose from the many options available. /s

Get rid of the parking, sure. Extend the footpath/sidewalk into that space, sure. But the footpath/sidewalk outside their shop is publicly-owned, it’s not private property. Will the shopkeepers commit to keeping clean and tidy? Will they commit to maintaining it (cracks in concrete, trip hazards, etc), or is that still the council’s job? I don’t think they should get to use it for free, or without some sort of commitment to maintain it.