> it really upsets me when I see fellow cyclists
  > acting like dicks

In general, I find it really odd that people in cars think that cyclists need to watch out for cars and not the other way around. The person driving the car is the one holding the deadlier weapon, why are they not held to a higher sense of responsibility?

As an anecdote, one of my friends was hit by a car, and ended up in the hospital. She had the right of way, but that didn't stop the lady that was driving the car from calling her up to complain about the fact that her insurance was going to be more expensive after the accident.

Let that sink in. Someone driving a car, disobeyed the law, and put someone in the hospital, then called up that person to complain about their insurance increasing. I'll bet you that the driver wouldn't have called up to complain if the person she hit had been in a car rather than on a bicycle.

But isn't it even odder that cyclists think the same thing about pedestrians? My encounters with the "dick cyclist" has always been when I was walking. Isn't this similar to what cyclists think about the "dick driver"?

It seems whenever people are in a position of "power" they become pushy, impatient, and careless towards people in a "lesser" position, e.g. drivers towards bikers and bikers towards pedestrians.

The problem between car drivers and bike riders, is that there are a lot of drivers that view the position of the person in the car as the 'normal' position, and the position of the cyclist as the 'abnormal' position.

Take the article that the OP is in response to. It is written along the lines of:

  I drive a car, and do not drive bicycle. I therefore
  have little vested interest in infrastructure relating
  to bicycles and a strong vested interest in infrastructure
  related to cars. Therefore I see infrastructure related
  to bicycles as 'stealing' time/space/resources away
  from the infrastructure related to cars.

A driver who hits a cyclist or pedestrian risks a dent in the hood at the worst. So while the "dick cyclist" is annoying, the position of power isn't comparable.

They are. There are insurance requirements for driving, licensing, etc. I'm unaware of any legal restrictions on bicyling on public roads (apart from staying off certain restricted access roads, typically interstates).

We can argue about whether these requirements are adequate, but it's absurd to suggest that they don't exist.

> I'll bet you that the driver wouldn't have called up to complain if the person she hit had been in a car rather than on a bicycle.

I'll bet you that they would have, because I've seen it happen.

Why are you so certain that it wouldn't have happened?

  > We can argue about whether these requirements are
  > adequate, but it's absurd to suggest that they don't
  > exist.

A reasonable analogy would be hunters and guns. Hunters are required to get both a hunting license and a gun license (barring bow hunters, etc). If someone is wandering around in the forest during hunting season, who is the person that should be more aware of their surroundings. We can argue that both people should be, but the hunter is the person with the deadly weapon.

I've actually wondered why there aren't insurance and licensing requirements. I would be happy paying my fair share of infrastructure maintenance as a cyclist, especially if it helped give a voice and build safer roads for bicyclists.

There are big debates about whether bicycle (rider?) licensing would be effective, but my two concerns are:

1) Added cost gives no incentive to car drivers to start commuting by bike, which would have at least some effect on congestion, pollution and health.

2) How do you enforce it?

There needs to be a big improvement in driver education, and responsible cycling needs to be promoted from a young age. Cutting reds and not signalling is behavioural issue that won't be magically fixed by registration/licensing.

Maybe not directly, but the funds generated from licensing and penalties could go towards education programs, tax rebates for those who start commuting by bike, improving safety for cyclists, etc. My guess is that there's a network effect to be had. Once you hit a certain density or,(ugh) critical mass of cyclists on the road you get a point where it is safe and socially-accepted enough that it will become commonplace, and everybody wins.

2) How do you enforce it?

I don't know, I have no experience in the machinations of government. However, I'm confident that if you tell state and municipal governments that they could generate revenue off of it, they will find a way.

Bikes are a problem? Right. Cars kill over 1.4 million people a year, and injure over 50 million people. Anybody arguing about problem cyclists really need a reality check.

I don't care anywhere near as much about dick cyclists who may get themselves killed, compared to problem car drivers who will get me killed.