It's Never a Bicycle Accident

> And taxes and fees just like for motor vehicles, whether ICE vehicles or electric vehicles

Those taxes and fees are for road upkeep and resurfacing. The fourth power law [0] tells us that bicycles have (if we're being exceedingly generous) a negligible impact, even relative to the average Mazda Miata.

> licensing, registering, insuring framework for cyclists

We have gun licenses, hunting licenses, driving licenses, pilot's licenses, and more. Note that all of the above can and will kill you, or those around you, if practiced unsafely. Per the fine article above, "It's Never a Bicycle Accident" is an astute way of putting it. Shawn Bradley isn't paralyzed because he was cycling unsafely, but because someone else was driving unsafely.

The same point is made regarding insurance: mandatory insurance means if you're in an accident someone else causes, your car isn't totaled or in need of thousands of dollars worth of work that the at-fault party can't pay for. This isn't much of an issue with bicycles though: a car can easily cause thousands in medical bills, but a vehicle is driving away relatively unscathed from any interaction with a cyclist.

> Cyclists roll through signals, intersections & stop signs

We come to a full stop when driving to verify it's safe. If it's safe, there's no penalty for coming to a complete stop. If it's unsafe, we recognize that it takes time and distance to stop your 2-ton vehicle; as such, it's a good thing you were already stopped. Considering cyclists weigh approximately an order of magnitude less, they also take dramatically less time to stop.

Do note that with the above, we're even arguing to your point: the cyclists rolling through signage are simultaneously the worst offenders, and the ones most likely to have their lives altered because of it. While we can say the best drivers can kill someone, the worst cyclists aren't going to kill anyone but themselves.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AASHO_Road_Test

I will say, however, that cost is one of the primary issues which is rarely addressed. In the USA the dollar is king and it shows in all aspects of our lives.

Compared to automobiles, Bicycles are too cheap for their own good. America would have good cycling infrastructure If bicycles cost $20k to purchase, $5k per year to fuel, $500 to register, $1,500 year to insure and if the bicycling lobby spent hundreds of millions of dollars bribing politicians yearly.

Drivers (why isn’t driver a dirty word?), at least in the USA, have a clear sense of superiority and entitlement which drives (pun intended) their sociopathic behavior. “I spent $50,000 on my Tesla and thousands more on licensing and maintenance! That money gives me the right to get back to my bedroom community in San Mateo as quickly as possible, fuck you and your 2-wheels, i’ll run you over with zero legal consequences” is a common attitude.

The USA will never get dutch-quality cycling infrastructure until bicycle riders spend driver-level money.

Here are some examples of things that work in various countries:

The Netherlands fixed this ages ago. You hit a cyclist with a car, it's your fault regardless of the circumstances for the insurers. The net result is a country where drivers are very mindful of cyclists and check their right side mirrors before turning right and their left side mirror before 'dooring' a passing cyclist. Failing to do that is expensive and there are so many cyclists that it is in any case a good idea. Besides, nobody wants it on their conscience to have people hospitalized because of inattention, sloppiness, or incompetence.

France at some point introduced a simple traffic rule that states that when over taking cyclists you need to give them a lot of space. So, now you see cars slowing down and overtaking cyclists properly on two lane country roads: i.e. waiting for the left lane to clear and then using that and giving the cyclist at least a meter or so of clearance. It's kind of funny to see that in action but it works. Failing to do that has hefty fines associated with it if you get caught. So drivers actually do this. France has a lot of cyclists on country roads training and getting taken over by cars doing 90 km/hour is not risk free unless they keep their distance. So, a completely sane rule. Any accidents tend to be very nasty. And again, nobody wants that on their conscience anyway.

London introduced fees for entering the downtown area. Unless you have to be there, you'll want to avoid that because it's expensive. It also has cameras all over the place so if you mess up, it will be on camera. That was mainly done for pollution and security reasons but it also made it a safer place to bike around.

I pay for the infrastructure, it comes from income tax not registration. Yet look how little of my money goes to bicycle infrastructure anyway. Registration typically covers registration administration and sometimes third party insurance levys, different state to state but it almost never covers infrastructure. I also have two cars anyway, every cyclist I know owns a car.

Where I live, bicycle infractions are fineable and also demerit your car license. So no problem there but enforcement.

Of course cyclists can be in the wrong, but riders die when motorists are in the wrong, the stakes aren't the same. Saying cyclists are in the wrong doesn't suddenly make the mistakes equal. We could bicker about this point ad nauseum but motorists are the ones who chose to bring a lethal weapon into the community that day so it's their responsibility to make sure not to kill anyone.

Now this one is controversial and I am sure there are tonnes of selfish cyclists, but when I do anything marginally illegal it is in order to give drivers an easier time or make myself safe. I will pull onto the footpath in order to do a hook turn instead of sitting in the intersection for one example. Technically not illegal here either but motorists assume I am trying to cut ahead.