Richard Cranium

This thread is as good as any in discussion about "bicycling." But of course, there are simply to many situations and applicable concepts to delineate and identify to keep commenting on track....

In general - the concept of "law" is to address individual personal responsibility among social constructs - whether theses associations be a club, an army or a society......

My take or perspective suggests that the operation of a non-powered object weighing less than 40-50lbs is inherently safer and requires less personal responsibility than operating a powered vehicle weighing much much more. (hey it IS an opinion)

Anyway if you follow my line of reasoning then you can see why things like guns and nuclear power plant require more laws than knives and hamburger stands.

I would love to discuss these topics - but they need to be posted in a way that limits the scope of discussion to specific concepts that can be identified and understood among all those who would like to comment. For instance, discussing how when and why public roads and property require different rules than private property would be a start........

Surfmonkey

If treated as a "vehicle" and licensed, they would probably impose an additional requirement of "cycling insurance"...can't be on the road if uninsured. Next will be an "operators license" to insure that the operator is proficient in the operation and control of his/her vehicle.
Then comes a requirement of "annual inspection" for a fee to insure that all safety equipment is operational and meets specific standards.

Digital_Cowboy

All I can say is what has been said before, i.e. that motorized vehicles cause more damage to the environment (both natural and manmade) vs. what a bicycle can/would ever do.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the actual "tag" is much larger and made out of metal. What you are referring to is the registration sticker. If bicycles were required to carry a metal license plate with corresponding registration sticker. Both of which are proportional to the size of the vehicle. Said plate/registration sticker would be so small as to be useless. Or would be so large as to either be a danger to the cyclist or adversely affect the performance of the bike.

Given that I don't drive, I do not know how vehicles used strictly for racing are treated.

As for a custom built bike, if said person built it totally from the ground up, or nearly, i.e. they built a custom one of a kind frame. It won't have an embossed serial number.

Digital_Cowboy

Don't forget the question of at what age is one required to be licensed? What size and type of bike(s)?

rekmeyata

Actually I disagree with the crying about the poor people, that's BS. There I go again using those letters. I've volunteered to help the poor and needy in Los Angeles, Bakersfield, and Fort Wayne, these poor people can afford big screen TV's!!! Cell phones, super loud car stereos that make you think there's an earthquake happening, bookshelves lined with movies, lottery tickets purchased every welfare pay day, cigarettes and their booze. Don't cry that schit around me!! And if they don't want to pay the reg. fee then buy a used bike, big deal! Or if they only want a new bike then go to Wally World and get a new bike for $200 and pay an additional $10 for a 5% reg fee, they'll pay a lot more then that for their cartoon of cigs they buy once a week.

Digital_Cowboy

I have to disagree with you. Yes, I'm sure that there are plenty of poor people with piss poor spending habits. I do not believe that they make up the majority.

And why exempt used bikes from this purposed one time tax/fees? Aren't there fees that one has to pay whether or not the car they but is new or not?

Myosmith

I don't know if the terminology is universal, but I've always heard the metal identifier referred to as the License Plate and the annual registration sticker referred to as the Tag. The officer that pulled me over said "Your tags are expired" and handed me a $20 ticket (glad I was in ND as the MN fine is much higher).

Vehicles used for racing which are not street legal and are not used on public roads are not registered nor licensed, again I can only talk about the tri-state area around here, it may be different elsewhere.

MN registers trailers that are used on public roadways, many of which are home or custom built and don't have serial numbers. They issue a permanent tag that cannot be removed intact from the frame and the number on that tag pulls up a description of the trailer, its frame design, hitch class, and weight capacity. I know there are completely custom built cars on the road, but I don't know how the state handles issuing them a VIN. Possibly using the serial number off the engine block (not applicable to bikes).

- Carrying liability insurance to protect others from property damage or personal injury (actually already covered under most home owners policies)
- Making a cyclist prove that they can safely operate and control their bicycle on public roadways
- Requiring that bicycles are fit and safe to ride before allowing them on public roadways

Be careful how loud you say those things as, while cumbersome and difficult to enforce, the general public could find them reasonable and even desireable.

On the subject of poverty and bicycles, I work at a bike co-op so I understand how much of a burden even relatively small fees can be on someone who is just scraping by. One of the goals of the co-op is to provide basic transportation for those who could not otherwise afford it. Sure there are system abusers who will haggle over the $2 suggested donation for a used tire only to be interrupted by an incoming text on their new Droid, but there are also lower working class people who ride their bike during a Fargo winter because they can't afford the $4/gal gas to get to work.

rekmeyata

I tell you what, go volunteer to help the poor and needy with in home visits in your area then report back. I've done that in 3 larger metro areas and your wrong, very wrong. Of course there are down and outers on the street, most of those are mentally handicapped and should be in institutions, some are people that fell on rough times, some like no responsibility and wish to live like that...I had a friend that did that, he just checked out of society, (some people do it differently like another friend I have that was a top ranking military person and now lives off the grid and spends much of his time away from people in his cabin or touring alone on his bicycle). Regardless, a person on the street isn't going to be buying a bike because it will just get stolen!! But those that live in section 8 housing can afford a bike, like I said, even if they can't afford a new one there are plenty around for under $100 used that will work fine and they will never have to spend a dime on taxes.

Sorry but I disagree with your thoughts on this subject, I've been around far too long to know what these "poor" people spend their money on, and most, not a few, most have poor spending habits. Even if they have poor spending habits, that's their problem not ours, if they can afford a big screen TV they can afford a nice bike. Nor do I feel they should be exempt from the tax, their not exempt from taxes for their cars they buy, so why bicycles? Your ideas on this subject fall flat on the liberal side of things yet it was the liberals who created and sponsored lottery programs across America, why? Because they knew that the vast majority of lottery ticket purchasers would be poor people, and their right, about 93% of the purchasers are just that (the rest are middle class). So why was the lottery programs created by the liberals? Because the poor people weren't paying their fair share of taxes and the lottery programs were designed to help fund public education thus lottery programs are a poor persons tax. And most of the poor people I knew spent an average of $20 a week on those tickets! I've seen a couple of apartments that had entire rooms decorated with lottery tickets on all four walls from floor to ceiling! https://www.philforhumanity.com/Lottery.html

With poor people, and even with middle class people, the problem with money boils down to one thing, priorities. They decide that they need a cell phone worse then they need auto insurance so they drive around uninsured while yakking non stop on their phone thanks to unlimited talking and texting. that will cost them $70 a month...but the insurance is only $50 for min liability. Priorities.

Burton

Just speaking from my own experience here in Montreal Canada. Here bicycles are classified as RECREATIONAL vehicles, not MOTOR vehicles. Although they are permitted on public roads (except where prohibited), there is an extremely extensive system of bike paths here throughout the city for the exclusive use of cyclists, rollerbladers and pedestrians. There's also a very extensive bus and subway system.

All of that is / was funded by property taxes paid by municipal residents regardless of wheither they own or rent, and in cases where Parks Canada is involved, probably supplemented by federal funding.

Although its not (yet) required to have a valid drivers license to ride a bike, moving infractions on a bicycle in this city can and will result in the assignment of demerit points against a drivers license if you have one.

Should things go a step further? I don't know. Maybe first we'd have to up the overall IQ of the general population. One of the biggest reasons bicycle theft is so hard to combat in this city is that the large majority of bicycle owners never mark down the serial number of their bicycle so stolen goods are hard to identify. And any ID tag would need to be issued against a serial number in the first place - good luck.

If people were just more responsible and considerate overall - we wouldn't need any of this anyway. And the only thing that seems to be consistantly demonstated is that not only can you not legislate good behavior - being pushy, rude and agressive is associated with being in charge, while being polite, accomodating and co-operative is usually regarded as letting yourself get walked on.

When the family structure fell apart here in NA - so did everything else.

Digital_Cowboy

Like you, I don't know how universal the terminology is, but I've heard the actual metal plate being referred to as both the license plates and the tags.

That actually makes sense. If they're not being used on the public roads, and are transported to the track theres no need to treat them like a regular car.

Agreed, given that bikes, except for bikes with gas powered motors on them (and they shouldn't be treated as bicycles) or a Bionx (like) assist motor (which should be treated as a bicycle as it's an assist motor). Bikes don't have a motor/engine so a vin wouldn't apply. But except for a SS/FG or a bike with an internal gear hub. Given that most bikes do have at least one derailleur. And from looking at the various components on my bikes I don't see any kind of S/N on any of them.

Agreed, given the disdain many motorists have for cyclists I could see that possibly happening.

Again, I agree, that there are and sadly probably always will be those who will abuse any system.

Digital_Cowboy

Unless you've been inside the home of EVERY poor person in those three large metro areas. You are just making a generalization. Granted, it's a generalization based on experience, but unless you've been in the home of every poor person your claim is to general.

Yes, as I've said there are plenty of poor people who have piss poor spending/saving habits. However that doesn't mean that most or all are like that. It's also why that I think that as part of welfare reform that recipients should be required to attend classes to teach them how to plan and maintain a budget.

I do agree with you that or boils down to priorities. But buying a cell phone or big screen TV, etc. is not totally their fault. Think of all of the advertising that we're assaulted with on a daily basis. Advertising that's telling us that in order to be perceived in a certain way we HAVE to have this or that item.

mconlonx

The downside of this is drivers who think I should be more right so they can pass me easily, but who don't want to pay extra for pesky things like extended shoulders for bike/ped use so I can legally and safely be out of their way.

Those drivers are insane and should be summarily executed.

The Human Car

OK, I found this:
https://taxfoundation.org/article/sta...january-1-2012

So it's not most states that have sales tax.

rekmeyata

Of course I haven't been in every home, but I've been in so many I lost count. But whether it's the fault of advertising, bad upbringing, no financial education (which should be done in high school so kids will learn this stuff), whatever excuse one can dream up of it still boils down to priorities. If a person can afford that stuff and wants a new bike then they can afford the tax just like they afforded the tax on everything else they buy including the phone sales tax and the tax on the phone service they pay each month.

If you want to see the number of people buying lottery tickets just do some research, then figure 93% of them are low income people, that will give you a good idea what percentage of the population of low income people buy tickets.

What's weird is the high school my daughter attended tried to teach them financial wisdom, this class was sponsored by a bank! Guess what the bank had all the kids do? yup, go into debt for everything to teach them wise credit use...wise credit use in that class was to go into debt to buy anything they wanted. No mention of saving money to buy what you wanted. I told her to do as the class is instructing so she would pass the class, but she listens to me for financial advice and avoids loans, even her going to college is being done loan free without a whole lot help from us the parents. She works full time and goes to school part time and she lives on her own. I worked full time and went to school full time and graduated debt free, but back in those days college education was cheaper. We've helped her with car and laptop and other stuff if an emergency comes up, but she's going to do the college thing debt free. Of course she gets grants just as I did but they don't come close to paying the full boat as you probably know.

I-Like-To-Bike

YOU are the individual who IS saying "those things" beginning with your OP, allegedly to be a devil's advocate. The public that could find them reasonable and even desirable is not that general but more specifically those who wish to make bicycling burdensome and disappear from the streets and roads they drive on; i.e the people/haters whom you are advocating for.

See https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...l-and-punitive

Myosmith

It was a facetious comment as obviously those subjects have already been brought up, not just by me, but repeatedly over many years including by various governing bodies. This forum alone has many threads dedicated to discussions on these and related topics. The link posted above clearly illustrates my point. The topics are out there and we need to calmly and rationally examine the issues so that we can intelligently respond to them.

We as cyclists need to interact with the non-cycling public in a constructive and rational manner. Believe it or not, the vast majority of the non-cycling public is uninformed and more or less neutral on cycling matters. My OP was made because an intelligent, level-headed, non-cycling but not cycle hating, co-worker and I had a discussion where he brought up some points that I was inadequately prepared to rebut. As he is a member of the voting public who interacts with lots of other members of the voting public, I felt it a good idea to seek some constructive debate so that I would better be able to advocate for cycling. Examining point and counterpoint is the best way to accomplish that; more or less, getting into the mind of the individuals whom you are trying to influence, to understand their motivations.



I-Like-To-Bike,

You really should lighten up. Not everyone who is willing to examine a viewpoint with which you do not agree is a "hater". You obviously have some strong opinions, which is fine, but please re-read my OP and you will see that our viewpoints may not be as different as you seem to think they are. I was looking for information to rebut the notions of bicycle registration and rider licensure.

Quote:

I'll admit that I had difficulty finding valid arguments against these points. What say you?

I came here for help in preparing for the next time these subjects came up and many responded with useful information, but for some reason you launched a personal attack calling me a "hater" and insinuating that for some reason I support making bicycling burdensome and want it to disappear from the streets and roads I drive (ride) on. Why would I want to do that? Cycling literally helped save my life and is one of my favorite activities. I helped start and now am on the committee for the only organized recreational/charity ride in my community and was recently asked to join the planning committee for the regional Tour de Cure. My wife and daughter both ride and I recently helped my adult stepson build a commuter. I love cycling and actively promote it every chance I get.

Digital_Cowboy

I agree it boils down to priorities, BUT thanks to advertising and probably poor education those priorities have been skewed.

I'm pretty sure that I paid sales tax (which here one Fl is at least 7%) when I bought my bike. Which for a $500.00 bike adds $35.00, your "flat one time tax/fee" would add another $50.00. So that $500.00 bike now costs almost $600.00.

And it goes without saying that the more expensive a bike is the more that one is going to end up paying both in sales tax and your one time fee. Which is going to result in people not wanting to buy high end bikes. As they're going to have to pay more in various fees.

Can't you see how even your "one time fee" collected at time of purchase could/would have a negative effect on the sale of new bicycles? Particularly for those who buy multiple bikes during the year, or a new bike every year.

rekmeyata

If you had to pay an additional 5% fee to register your $500 bike all you had to pay would have been $25, add that to the $35 you paid in sales tax and your talking about $60 total. It's funny how someone can complain about spending $35 for a fee but think nothing of spending almost twice that for one tire!!!

Don't forget, most poor people probably won't spend $500 on a bike because they don't consider that to be more important then paying $500 for their I Phone. So most poor people will go to Walmart and spend $150 which a reg fee would only add $7.50...assuming they don't buy a used bike which is what a lot do so there is no fee unless they volunteer to pay one.

And high end bikes are purchased by high end customers who have the money, their not going to care if their spending $8,000 for a bike that they have to spend another $400 for the fee. It's like why would a rich person buy a Ferrari only to learn that they have to pay a luxury tax...because they can.

By the way, Europe has a value added tax, this means the more expensive of an item you buy the more tax you pay then we do here, a lot more tax, this hasn't hurt retail sales the least bit.

Digital_Cowboy

If you're referring to the Conti Gatorskins I ride on, no I do not object to paying for quality.

Really? I've seen people driving high-end luxury cars pitch a hissy fit over the smallest of charges. And how do you think they stay rich? By watching how they spend their money.

rekmeyata

I'm sorry I was making a general statement, I had no clue you rode on Conti, but a lot of people do. And you made the point for me, you pay more because you like the ride of the tire, same with someone buying a better bike, they'll pay more because they like the quality of the bike. So right there is your proof you even admitted to that the fee won't stop people from buying expensive bikes.

I've seen the hissy fit thing too, but they didn't have hissy fit when they paid the luxury tax on that vehicle did they? Nope, the hissy fit came later, but the act is mostly for attention.

I've mentioned this here before, I'm a tightwad myself. I can, well could of now that I'm laid off I can't, but I could have afforded a luxury vehicle, in fact had a few, but I got tired of the nonsense in the cost of repairs yet I too could afford the repairs...I just thought it was unfair that they make cars that can't be repaired by the back yard mechanic then charge a arm and leg to do the repairs. So about 5 years ago I decided we would no longer buy anything newer then the late 70's, but we needed a extended ca pickumup so we got a 98 to save on the cost of depreciation at least. So I'm there, but I don't just complain about it I took action against it.

Bekologist

motor vehicles are licensed by the authority of states to regulate hazardous, dangerous and damaging motor vehicles.



travel in public is one of our fundamental freedoms. travel by bike is an exercise of our fundamental freedom to travel public highways and byways without needing a license to do so.

people suggesting a restriction on our fundamental American freedom to travel are pinko commies that should be summarily executed.

Commodus

Yes.

mconlonx

I hate haterz!

Death to fanatics!

Ace X

Point #1
A bicycle is not a motor vehicle & should not need to display a licence tag. If the fee would not apply to bicycles used exclusively offroad then that's were I will ride because I will NOT pay a "Fee" to ride on the roads.

Point #2
Again, a bicycle is not a vehicle. Why should a rider need a notation on their driver's license or state ID that they had passed a bicycle safety and operations course including an in the saddle test just as drivers and motorcycle riders do?

Point #3
Cyclists are cited and fined in the same manner as the operator of a motor vehicle for speeding, failure to obey traffic signs and signals, illegal lane changes, etc. I have heard of people getting DUI's on bikes, no proof online that I found, only word of mouth. I have seen a bicyclist pulled over on the side of the road getting a ticket. What he did, I dont know cause I was driving passed. No accident nearby.

rekmeyata

Point one invalid. While a bicycle is not motorized it can be registered, but it shouldn't have a need for a license tag, there's no point for that since the bicycle registration number is the serial number and all a cop would have to do is check the serial number. And if the MTB is an adult bike then it would be registered along with the road bikes.

Point 2 is invalid UNLESS the cycling safety thing is incorporated into the vehicle license training. Most people that ride bikes do so in a manner where they do things illegal on the street, this needs to stop by stepping up enforcement of traffic violations of cyclists. Until motorists and cyclists are educated about each other and laws enforced we will have continued problems.

Point 3 is correct but most law enforcement agencies DO NOT enforce traffic violations caused by cyclists. And a DUI is actually handled as a drunk in public fine, but each state is different, Some states exclude bicycles entirely from their definition of "vehicles." Other states limit the application of their DUI or DWI laws to "motor vehicles." But some states treat bicycles as just another vehicle on the road, regardless of the language used within their DUI laws. In these states, drunk bike riders face the same potential legal landmines as any other drunk driver.
See: https://dui.findlaw.com/dui-charges/drunk-biking.html

Problem is that in point 1 cyclists scream when their bikes are stolen and no way to recover it unless by a fluke of happen chance. And cyclists scream because there aren't enough cycling infrastructure but they don't want to pay a fee to help improve...go figure.

Then another problem is with point 2 is that cyclists scream when cars violate the laws of the road and intrude on their rights but don't want to be held accountable for their own illegal actions that intrude on the rights of motorists.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.