That's a beautiful example of the entitlement in question. Cyclists pay taxes (did you think that gas taxes are high enough to pay for roads?), cause orders of magnitude less damage and wear to the road surfaces than automobiles, and don't use anywhere near the amount of valuable land as free storage for their vehicles when not in use.
(The law violation works both ways too. Ever seen a motorist obey the speed limit? Me neither.)
a. having bicyclists licensed,
b. their bicycles registered & inspected by an
agency,
c. license plates issued &
d. the respective parties be insured to cover
potential damages to themselves and others
on the road, when accidents happen?
Does not that reasonably follow from what you're implying & if you want the same rights as any other DMV registered vehicle?
How does a cyclist not get to do any of those?
For example, did you know that impaired riding of a bicycle is just as prosecutable as "driving under the influence" of a motor vehicle?
I'd obviously be very willing to do all of these -- I've already done them as a driver. I've been licensed and driving for 25 years with no accidents or tickets. I'm a member of AAA too, for what that's worth. (Though I'll note that I'd expect my biking insurance to be so close to zero as to not matter as the odds that I'll injure anyone on my bike are vanishingly small compared to the odds that I'll severely injure or kill someone when I'm driving.)
In my opinion cyclists should be licensed, but that's not currently the law. But neither is it the law that killing someone in a wreck is automatically 2nd degree murder, which in any other situation it would be.
Those licensing laws don't exist because the government wants to make driving on the natural roads that sprung fully formed from the earth less fun in cars. They exist because roads are built on public land that could potentially be used for other purposes, and because driving is inherently dangerous to other people and requires special training. And while I would actually prefer that there were more regulation here, I don't see how it is implied from cyclists paying taxes any more than it would tax-paying pedestrians requiring a license to cross a street. Aside from being another direct example of driver entitlement, that is.
It's... downright bizarre that you think anyone wouldn't know that impaired riding of a bicycle is prosecutable. I honestly can't figure out what you're even trying to say there. If it's some sort of sideways implication that anyone riding a bicycle is ignorant of the law, I'd point to the far larger number of arrests for DUI of drivers as a counter.
I would personally be open to all of those, but I feel like it's something that would be good 10% of the time, and pretty problematic 90% of the time.
I can see an argument made for licensing cyclist who want to ride on non-residential roads. These sort of cyclists though are unlikely to injure anyone but themselves, so there's not a lot to be ganied from it.
The idea of requiring a 5-year-old to get licensed so they can ride around in front of their appartment building/house seems a little bizzare.
Vehicle licensing depends on the kind of vehicle and how easy it is to accidentally kill or maim people with it in it's normal operation. This is very easy with the DMV registered vehicles, it's not that easy with a bike.
(The law violation works both ways too. Ever seen a motorist obey the speed limit? Me neither.)