As the number of cyclists steadily grows in the United States each year, cities and fellow motorists continue to struggle with how to accommodate them. This winter, Chicago has instituted mini-snow plows to clear bike lanes for those who still want to commute in the cold. Many are arguing that while this accommodation (and others including bike lanes and road work) is great, who is paying for all of the upkeep? A city councilwoman’s proposal to offset these expenses is to institute a $25 annual cycling tax. This past year, Georgia, Oregon, Washington and Vermont all considered similar proposals. Critics are against the proposals and argue that cyclists are different and shouldn’t be subjected to the same treatment as motorists. I disagree. While cyclists should not be treated exactly the same, they should be subject to similar requirements. Why? The same safety and funding concerns affect cyclists.

A study conducted in the Bay Area in 2007 (using data from more than 11,000 accidents) revealed that in accidents involving a bicycle and car collision, over 60% of the time the cyclist was at fault. The most common violations that led to the accidents were riding on the wrong side of the road, refusing to yield to an automobile’s right of way, unsafe speeding and ignoring traffic signals and signs. Most alarming is that Cyclists who caused collisions were nearly three times more likely to be under the influence of alcohol, compared to drivers who caused accidents. ABC news also noted that bicycle accidents are grossly underreported (relying on a 2001 Study from the Bicycle Coalition) which would possibly increase the 60% statistic.

Legally, cyclists are required to abide by the same rules of the road as drivers. These rules include traffic laws as well as the duty to exercise ordinary care in regards to one’s own safety and others on the roadways. This includes not cycling while intoxicated.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration reports that 28% of cyclists killed in 2009 had a measurable blood alcohol level (with similar stats for years following). 24% of these had a BAC of .08% or higher. Studies have concluded that one’s ability to operate a bike is similar to that of a car, in fact one study showed that BAC over .10% of cyclists increased the chance of accident by over tenfold.

Like Cyclist and Car accidents, trends show that over the last couple years, Pedestrian and Cyclist fatalities and injuries have increased (which makes sense because the number of cyclists have increased every year). According to the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, cyclist fatalities increased by 8.7% in 2012 and pedestrian deaths increased by 3%. Even Seattle (the city ranked 7th Safest for pedestrians and cyclists) saw an increase in fatalities.

Many people are pointing to insufficient road design improvements and cyclists sharing urban roads with motorists the problem. While there is a growing number of people who are cycling, Transportation for America spokesman David Goldberg says that cities are depressed and simply do not have the sufficient tax revenues to fund design projects to make the roads cyclist compatible. One of those cities is Charlotte. The city would love to make the roads cyclist friendly, but simply does not have the money to do so.

What would help to mitigate all of these issues? Proportionally equal treatment for cyclists and motorists. Cyclists should have to follow a similar registration process to motorists. The registration would be much less for a cyclist (as compared to a motorist), but would still contain a Rules of the Road test. No cyclist would be allowed to cycle on streets before taking this test. The registration fees would be used to design sufficient bike lanes and infrastructure – allotting cities to rely on other funding sources besides depleted tax revenues. A Rules of the Road test would help mitigate the number of accidents because cyclists would be exposed to regulations and be warned of the effects of cycling while intoxicated.

Now, this post is not about the blame game, it’s about what is fair. We all have witnessed reckless drivers and reckless cyclists (and safe ones too). If drivers and cyclists will be sharing the road, what is fair is to treat them equally in kind. As a matter of public policy, cities ought to encourage public transportation, carpooling and methods that harm the environment minimally (walking and cycling) because it is good for the environment and cost efficient for individuals. At the same time, the burden should not be shouldered solely by motorists – it should be shared proportionally by all who use the roads. No one can argue that cyclists leave the same carbon footprint as a car, but as a matter of public safety, there are concerns (as I have discussed) when it comes to cyclists: abiding by rules of the road, drunk cycling, accidents, and affordability of proper cycling infrastructure.