In article ,
Huge wrote:
As it happens, nor am I at this point. I just want cyclists to admit
that they get to use the roads for nothing.

They pay VAT on the purchase of their bike, which goes to pay for
the upkeep of the roads in the same way that the money you pay for
the tax disc does ('road tax' being tied in some way to spending
on new roads stopped being true in the 1920s, IIRC).

It's possible that this is in reasonable proportion to the damage
they cause to the road - and thus the amount of money that needs
to be spent on maintaince - but that would be difficult to show,
I suspect.

Then we come to the next point; cyclists want to be treated like
"proper road users" (in actual fact, they mean cars, but if you mention
that, they deny it.) That's fine by me. I want them to be treated like
"proper road users", too; that is, registered, licensed, tested,

tested? The rigour of testing seems to be proportional to the amount of
damage improper use will cause: that's why a 21tonne LGV licence
(and LGV MOT, if you were refering to vehicle rather than driver
testing) is more difficult to get than a moped licence.

Therefore, I suspect that the test for a push bike would be about
as hard to pass as writting the date on the application - and thus
rather pointless.

carry
a registration plate, be prosecuted for their continuous infractions of
the road laws

I'd agree with that, but that's an manpower/enforcement issue (like
all road issues that can't be detected with a camera).

Cheers,
Mike