Man charged with trying to run down bicyclist in Cambridge

Bill, in our example the driver, was already licensed/registered and still had that status (nothing in the report about driving on a suspended license, etc.)

Anon claimed that, because we have so many bikers, they should register to enforce accountability. Even assuming facts not in evidence (we don't know if this was initially Alfred the biker's fault for initial provocation), Bill the driver is already under that level of accountability, and he still tried to kill Alfred.

Yeah, because it totally makes it OK for the cyclist to injure pedestrians and damage property because he gets hurt too.

Nowhere did I justify cyclists causing injury or damaging property- something that almost never happens anyway. I explained why we license operators of motor vehicles; they can (and do, constantly) cause enormous injuries and property damage. Cyclists can't - and more importantly, they don't.

I separately pointed out that cyclists have a lot more consequences to not playing by the rules. They're vulneable- at least as much as whatever they hit, person or physical object.

this would give cops more enforcement power

Massachusetts law requires you to identify yourself to an police officer. Cambridge Police have no issues with citing bicyclists as-is. They do so frequently. It's a common myth that bicyclists can't be cited for traffic violations.

You also still haven't answered my point that many cyclists are already licensed drivers.

No, the problem is really one of attitude. Most drivers have no problem obeying the law, I've noticed, especially if they see the bike lanes. It's generally the special snowflakes throwing the hissy fits about how they have the right of way all the time that cause problems. It's always the cyclist's fault or the pedestrian's fault or the city's fault, never theirs.

Which is what makes cyclist/pedestrian/driver relations so fraught in this city, really.

Also, under the law it's *not* a motor vehicle. See MGL 90-1.

"Motor vehicles'', all vehicles constructed and designed for propulsion by power other than muscular power including such vehicles when pulled or towed by another motor vehicle, except railroad and railway cars, vehicles operated by the system known as trolley motor or trackless trolley under chapter one hundred and sixty-three or section ten of chapter five hundred and forty-four of the acts of nineteen hundred and forty-seven, vehicles running only upon rails or tracks, vehicles used for other purposes than the transportation of property and incapable of being driven at a speed exceeding twelve miles per hour and which are used exclusively for the building, repair and maintenance of highways or designed especially for use elsewhere than on the travelled part of ways, wheelchairs owned and operated by invalids and vehicles which are operated or guided by a person on foot; provided, however, that the exception for trackless trolleys provided herein shall not apply to sections seventeen, twenty-one, twenty-four, twenty-four I, twenty-five and twenty-six. The definition of "Motor vehicles'' shall not include motorized bicycles. In doubtful cases, the registrar may determine whether or not any particular vehicle is a motor vehicle as herein defined. If he determines that it should be so classified, he may require that it be registered under this chapter, but such determination shall not be admissible as evidence in any action at law arising out of the use or operation of such vehicle previous to such determination.

Hell, motorized bicycles aren't even "motor vehicles"...let alone plain ol' bicycles.