That said, there will not be any registration system that charges on the order of a dollar per year or less for bicycles, especially if they thought the system would help "pay for the roads". It's not enough money to even pay for administering the system.
There have been mandatory bicycle registrations that charged a few dollars per year in the past, but they didn't involve almost full sized plates and certainly weren't intended to pay for the roads -- the intent was more to make bicycles easier to track somehow. And in general they cost more to administer than they brought in and were eventually thrown out.
If (and this is a big if) the lawmakers decide that cyclists need to stop being freeloaders and actually pay for the roads (with all the logical problems that assertion has -- I am *not* agreeing with this view), they will not base the fee proportionally on vehicle weight, vehicle+operator weight or damage done to the roads (and we can talk about if it's fair or not all we want -- they just won't do it.)
Instead, they'll probably just look at what they already charge motorcycles or mopeds and either charge the same amount or a little less.
... proportional to vehicle weight would be 20/3500 for a road bike, and proportional means to the first power, not the fourth. So if that was the system, if the 3500 lb car costs $50, the 20 lb bike costs 29 cents. That's the "pennies" I was referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by wphamilton
And if they include a typical operator weight, it becomes 200 lbs vs 3680 lbs instead, so instead of 29 cents that works out to around $2.80.
Of course, both of these include some guesses at weights and prices -- they're just examples. Certainly, that 29 cents could turn into a dollar with a heavier bike or a more expensive fee, and that $2.80 could turn into a dollar with a lighter rider and a less expensive fee.
(And nobody is suggesting that they do it by the fourth power that I'm aware of. Unless you were when you said "since wear on the road is proportional to weight" ?)
But again, if somebody decides that bicycles do need to be registered and need full sized plates and the like, especially if the purpose is to make sure they pay "their fair share", the cost won't be $0.29 or $2.80. It'll probably be about what motorcycles are charged, possibly a bit less.
Via reason.com comes today's example of "are you f***ing kidding me?"
Three Hall County legislators will hold a meeting Monday night at the Hall County Government Center to discuss proposed legislation that calls for registration and licensing of bicycles used on Georgia roadways.
Gainesville State Rep. Carl Rogers said he placed House Bill 689 in the "hopper" at the end of the 2013 legislative session, knowing that the measure would be up for consideration in 2014. Fellow Republicans Lee Hawkins and Emory Dunahoo are co-sponsors of the bill.
In essence, the measure calls for paid registration and licensing for bicycles that would be operated on streets that also are used by motor vehicles. Rogers said the legislation would change some operating rules for cyclists, as well.
Some lowlights of the bill [pdf] include a $15 yearly registration fee; elimination of "two-abreast" riding; limiting riding groups to no more than four bikes separated by at least four feet each; groups of four separated by at least 50 feet.
Are they trying to get people to give up bicycling? It doesn't appear to give any exemptions for children's bicycles, either. Not to mention the effective destruction of the group ride with the four-cyclist limit.
Article from accessnorthga.com
Man, I would so own the lane everywhere.
They must be sponsored by the auto industry.
Besides lining the pockets of the state gov't, just what good would enacting this particular law do? It's not going to make the roads any safer since there's still a contingent out there either on their bikes or behind the wheel that act like total a-holes no matter what the laws say. The only thing I see it as is a way to extract money from cyclists who have given up driving.
Plain and simple; we don't need new laws that quite obviously aren't going to do crap. Instead they should be enforcing the laws that are already there.
Beyond that the only thing I see this doing is opening the doors to more bureaucratic crap and fees. Next thing you know you'll be required to get bicycle insurance, a yearly inspection fee, etc.
The only way I'd personally get behind any kind of legislation like this is if they planned on using the revenue generated to improving infrastructure for cyclists. Thing is, we all know that'll never happen. :/
can't wait to see jon stewart take a crack at the groups of four thing.
I <3 our government :rolleyes:
You are talking about Georgia after all. Trying to find any intelligence in most elected officials there is pointless. It is scary that the same standard of intelligence is now inflicting itself on a national basis. Would that Mencken was still alive to pillory the ignorance that seems to be the new badge of honor.
I hear Georgia has some great golf courses.
When laws like this come up, I always figure that there is some kind of personal vendetta involved between the lawmaker and someone/some thing. Rogers probably hates when his limo driver has to pass cyclists. J/K, I don't know that he rides in a limo, but it sure seems like the privileged and powerful love to go after the dumbest things.
Typical big government republicans.
The thread from Road was merged with the existing thread in A&S.
I would be happy to pay a registration fee based on curb weight if it were applied equally to all vehicles. How about a dollar a pound?
So, that's $17 for an Excalibur and $5718 for an Escalade. Sounds fair.
He did give a reason for it -- that passing vulnerable road users too closely was already illegal -- and that statement is basically true. That said, the existing law doesn't give a specific distance, and the new one did. Also, the bill had passed with unanimous or near unanimous support from the legislature, so you'd think he'd have not vetoed something so strongly supported ... but he did.