> Why should a motorist have to ride
> behind a bicycle traveling at 5 mph
> until they get the chance to drive
> into the oncoming lane to pass them?
Err, because it’s THE LAW.
> However, the real issue here is how
> legal are they?
They have the same legal rights to be there. In fact, they have MORE legal right than you do because the law does not require them to be licensed or carry insurance.
> What is my recourse if one of these
> uninsured, untested cyclists runs into
> me and causes bodily injury or damage
> to my vehicle on his or her
> noninspected vehicle?
Your vehicle outmasses any cyclist by many factors and you are worried about bodily injury to yourself?
> If they want to share the road they
> should share the expense and have the
> same requirements as all people
> traveling on the roads of Pittsburgh.
They already do. Most cyclists are also car owners and pay the taxes. Most cyclists already carry insurance of one form or another to cover them when they get run over. Most of the funding for roads comes from income and property taxes so, even those cyclists that don’t own cars are paying for YOUR roads. And bicyclists already have the same responsibilities that car drivers do.
Are you going to license children? Are you going to say that children cannot ride bikes until they are licensed and carry insurance? Are children going to be required to pay taxes for YOUR roads?
You just want to add a layer of bureaucracy that deters bicyclists from being on what you consider to be YOUR roads.
What about poor people? Is bicycling a mode of transportation that is only to be available for those that can afford insurance? This smacks of the disenfranchisement laws that require government IDs for voting. Laws that exclude the significant number of elderly and poor people who don’t have those IDs and would have a difficult time obtaining those IDs.