Fuck off #1: Roads that cyclists use are usually located in the city. City road maintenance is financed by municipal revenues which are derived primarily from property taxes. Naturally, cyclists are more likely to live within city limits (elsewise, they would drive into the city) and thus contribute to city funds directly as property owners or indirectly through rental payments to other property owners. By virtue of being local they also are more likely to spend locally and thus contribute to property taxes paid by local businesses. In short, cyclists probably contribute more to local road infrastructure than those who only drive.
Fuck off #2: If cyclists ought to pay special fees to fund road maintenance, then shouldn't pedestrians have to pay special fees to fund cross walks and sidewalks? Furthermore, should we require all residents to purchase pedestrian insurance just to protect ourselves against Darwin nominees who step into a crosswalk without looking? If not, then fuck off.
Fuck off #3. The reason motorists buy insurance is because the expenditure risk associated with an accident is extremely large relative to a person's annual income or accumulated wealth. The economic rationale for cyclists purchasing insurance is less compelling. A cyclist who causes an accident is unlikely to cause significant economic damage to another person or another person's property (there are exceptions, I know, but in general this statement is close to the truth). I do agree that a cyclist should have to pay for economic damage that they are liable for, but purchasing insurance is not necessary for this.
Please, for the life of me, stop blaming cyclists for the fact that you have to pay licensing fees and deal with shitty insurance companies. If you're so envious of the "perks" that cyclists have, then take up cycling. Lastly, fuck off. —PO'dCyclist