Introduction

Bicycle share programs, often seen as a sustainable and eco-friendly transportation option, are increasingly becoming a topic of debate regarding safety and regulation. Unlike traditional bicycles, modern versions of these programs often feature motorized components, prompting questions about whether these vehicles should be governed under the same rules as motor vehicles. This article explores the arguments for and against such regulation, highlighting the potential benefits and drawbacks.

Arguments Against Regulation

1. Safety Concerns are Overblown
Some argue that since these bikes are slow and generally not dangerous to others, strict regulation or licensing is unnecessary. However, the current incarnation of these vehicles, which are often motorized, poses significant risks to both riders and others on the road.

Despite the perception of safety, incidents have highlighted the dangers. For example, the Labour Party’s proposal to reclassify these vehicles as motorized machines indicates a growing acknowledgment that the existing framework is inadequate. Similarly, the Conservative Party has suggested introducing taxing and insuring these vehicles, further emphasizing the potential risks.

Real-World Incidents and Concerns

2. Dangerous Behaviors by Riders
The growing number of reports of reckless behavior by riders of these motorized bicycles is a cause for concern. Instances of riding at high speeds on sidewalks, entering crosswalks without looking, wearing earbuds, and riding at night without lights have been documented. These actions not only endanger the riders but also put others at risk.

Prime examples include minor riders without helmets, frequent speeding, and failure to check for traffic before crossing. The risk profile of these motorized bicycles is notably different from that of traditional bicycles, necessitating consideration of stricter regulations.

The Need for Regulation

3. Government Response and Liability
The current stance of authorities, such as Mr. Sunak and Mr. Kahn, reflects a general belief that these riders are "chosen icons" who cannot do wrong. This attitude has contributed to a lack of immediate action. However, it is essential to recognize that without proper regulation, accidents and fatalities could continue to occur, leading to legal and insurance issues for both riders and those involved in the incidents.

Considering the potential for financial burden from lawsuits, it might be prudent for citizens to have dashcams on hand. This measure can provide crucial evidence in the event of an accident, helping to protect individuals from wrongful death lawsuits.

Benefits of Regulation

4. Enhanced Safety and Public Perception Introducing a registration and taxing system for these vehicles would not only improve safety but also enhance public trust in these programs. By implementing rigorous standards for these vehicles and requiring proof of insurance, the onus would be on riders to ensure they are operating within a legal framework.

Furthermore, such regulation would align these motorized bicycles with other forms of transportation, creating a more cohesive system of road safety. This could lead to a reduction in accidents, as riders would be more likely to follow traffic rules and safety guidelines.

Conclusion

The question of whether bike share programs should be regulated like motor vehicles is a complex one with significant implications for road safety and public perception. While the current generation of these vehicles may seem safe, the reality is that they pose unique risks due to their motorized nature. Therefore, it is crucial for policymakers to consider the merits of introducing registration, taxing, and insurance requirements. This would not only protect riders but also foster a safer and more responsible approach to these transportation options.