General Cycling Discussion - N. Dakota considering a bicycle tax

I read on the Bicycle Advocacy that North Dakota is considering a bicycle tax in the amount of $50 for 2 years for all bikes ridden by adults with more than 2 speeds. This would mean that any one riding thru North Dakota would have to pay this tax or be fined $35. This is to be considered in February, 2003.

With the shortfall in Federal and State tax revenues, this could spread to other states. Any one else out there heard about this issue? Would you have to pay this for each bike? Talk about an excess tax if that is the case. I have 4 bikes that I ride through out the year on the road. If Ohio followed suit, I would pay more to license 3 bikes than to license 3 cars.

Would I have to buy a license for each State, if I decided to ride across country?

Your car taxes must be low :) A new car out here in california you would be easily $400 registeration for a cheap car.

As for the bicycle tax that is absolutely STUPID!!!!!! If you are using a bicycle for commuting.. running erands etc you should get a tax break at the end of the year for saving the environment etc..

Now how would they actualy enforce this? You don't register a bike.. Most carry ver min equipment etc with them.. no licenses etc..

I hope we'd see some major cycling improvements as well if they ever implemented such a tax.

Well, given the fact the federal gov'ment is slowly abdicating responsibility and passing unfunded mandates to the states, and the regressive tax schemes used by most states for financing (sales tax, etc., which falls disproportionately on the poor) this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
Here in Virginia, we had a property tax on cars (based on automobile value) which the last irresponsible administration decided to repeal (albeit partially), and now (no surprise here either) we have massive budget shortfalls. Voters refused a recent proposal to raise the sales tax in regions that have desperate gridlock (Hampton Roads/Norfolk) in order to improve said roads and now the state will likely be looking for groups with limited political clout to tax-- i.e. cyclists.
I note with some humour that should Virginia pass such a tax, I would be paying about five times the bicycle tax I now pay on my car. Perhaps if some bright light in the Virginia Senate proposes such a measure, I'll go down and argue that antique bikes be considered tax free, as such a proposal would hurt collectors (i.e. me) and we should recieve similar breaks to those garnered by collectors of antique cars. A friend owns a 59 caddy in near mint condition, and she pays only a few pennies of vehicle taxes (plus a small sticker fee). Her car is worth, oh, five to ten times what my 95 Subaru is, but I pay way more in taxes.
And if they start taxing cyclists in your neighbourhood, I suspect the only improvement will be "no bikes allowed" signs all over the place. I mean, we'll have to make the roads safe for those tax-paying citizens, and how could we make it safer than to not allow them to use anything?

My suggestion. I do not mind paying some kind of bike licensing fee. Of course, that for sure, elevates the bike to equal status with the car.. Taxation and representation and all that kind of stuff.
But it need be reasonable. Some states are probably eager to penalize cyclists, as they are some kind of freaks and a nuissance to motorists? What I did is email a member of The N.D. House Taxation committee a Mr. Rod Freilich. I want answers, is this tax some kind of penality to something that need be encouraged and what would cyclists get in return?
Also, I suggested I am a cycle tourist. N.D. Is one of 5 states I have yet to visit. I told Mr. Freilich I would like to tour the North Dakota Grasslands and Lewis and Clark Trail.. And that if Cyclists are not welcomed in his state, I would go elsewhere..I suggest others do the same.. Bike licensing fee is ok- if it is on par and to value being charged to the cost that the gas guzzling, pollution spewing, concrete intensive auto costs the state.. I will tell you what he replies, if anything..

Originally posted by cyclezealot
What I did is email a member of The N.D. House Taxation committee a Mr. Rod Freilich. I want answers, is this tax some kind of penality to something that need be encouraged and what would cyclists get in return?
Also, I suggested I am a cycle tourist. N.D. Is one of 5 states I have yet to visit. I told Mr. Freilich I would like to tour the North Dakota Grasslands and Lewis and Clark Trail.. And that if Cyclists are not welcomed in his state, I would go elsewhere..I suggest others do the same.. Bike licensing fee is ok- if it is on par and to value being charged to the cost that the gas guzzling, pollution spewing, concrete intensive auto costs the state.. I will tell you what he replies, if anything..

I would like the email address for Rod Freilich. I was thinking of going to North Dakota this summer with my wife and do some riding along the Lewis and Clark trail. I read that North Dakota has one of the worst tourist industries in the US. This will not help.

Originally posted by Poguemahone
Here in Virginia, we had a property tax on cars (based on automobile value) which the last irresponsible administration decided to repeal (albeit partially), and now (no surprise here either) we have massive budget shortfalls.
Perhaps your local govt will compensate as ours has... re-asses property values. Ours were only 2 years old, but on average they are now ~19% higher. Property taxes will rise accordingly. :rolleyes:

But getting back on topic, I'm with CZ. I don't have a problem with paying a reasonable bicycle tax, if they will afford me equivalent legal status, and actually teach motorists the law, w/regard to cyclists, and apply it.

Originally posted by roadbuzz
But getting back on topic, I'm with CZ. I don't have a problem with paying a reasonable bicycle tax, if they will afford me equivalent legal status, and actually teach motorists the law, w/regard to cyclists, and apply it.

But of course, in the real world we all know this won't actually happen. That is simply not the idea behind a 'bicycle tax'. It's simply a political stunt to satisfy the motoring primates who don't want to share the road with bicycles. The old "we pay taxes and they don't" is simply the means they use to justify their bigotry.

Of course, what they totally fail to consider is that it costs the govt. a lot more to have a car on the road than to have a bike on the road (when one considers the road network required to host each, the stress that each puts on the maintenance of that road network, fuel subsidies, the cost of going to war to protect that fuel etc etc).

"Perhaps your local govt will compensate as ours has... re-asses property values."
They did that already. My house value has gone up nearly 50% in the last two years. I think they're at the limit of what they can pull on that one without a taxpayer revolt.
I don't really have a problem with some form of vehicle taxation as long as it is a) compatible with the taxation on cars (i.e., value based) and b) results in some improvement on the roads for cyclists (I'd prefer to see 100% of the monies raised by such a tax going to the establishment of bike routes, but I know that's a pipe dream). I note you live in senic C'ville, which is blessed with a substantial network of bike lanes (at least it looks that way to me when I go visit my folks there). Here in Richmond, I can only think of a single bike lane (across one of the downtown bridges, and only on the bridge. Nowhere else. Every other bridge across the James you have to dismount and walk across). I can't see the funds raised from a bicycle tax going to fund a single improvement for anything but motor vehicles (or schools, if we're lucky), given the tenor in this state.

Originally posted by detrieux
I read on the Bicycle Advocacy that North Dakota is considering a bicycle tax in the amount of $50 for 2 years for all bikes ridden by adults with more than 2 speeds. This would mean that any one riding thru North Dakota would have to pay this tax or be fined $35. This is to be considered in February, 2003.

Well, that gives me yet another reason to never want to end up in NoDak again. Of all the places I've lived, NoDak was the worse place for cycling. In the fall you have huge sugar beat trucks driven by 12-year olds (literally) who haven't slept in days. They go from one load to another... sometimes employed by multiple trucking outfits in order to try and rack up as much cash as possible. Their inexperience combined with general disregard for everything except getting their loads in on time make them dangerous enough to motorists to say nothing of cyclists.

Oh and speaking of sugar beats... The farmers burn the stuff they can't sell. The smell is horrible and there are constant columns of black acrid smoke rising over the landscape. Flying over the countryside, I could swear I was in the middle of 1991 Kuwait. The fact that sometimes the farmer's kids start taking potshots at planes because they have nothing else better to do also did not help dispell that image either. I once had to do a no-flap landing because I could not extend my flaps. I tried dropping 1/3 flap on downwind and the lever would not budge. After I landed and squawked the plane, the mechanic came out and we did an inspection. What we found was a deformed flap-extension strut caused by a graze from a bullet. A few inches forward and that bullet would have hit my right wingtank. The mechanic shrugged and said, "yeah... that'll happen around here... the kids... they get bored."

I think North Dakota is just looking for a reason to get their 15 minutes of fame. The movie Fargo is long forgotten and I'm sure the people of North Dakota are feeling quite unimportant right now.

No we are not "feeling unimportant right now." We have an anal orifice that is anti biking and is making it his mission to hassle cyclists - this "gentleman" is a know anti-cyclist fanatic. By the way the Cohen(sp) brothers do great films - none , including Fargo, are "long forgotten."

Here in B.C., Canada, Bicycles are exempt from the Provincial sales tax because they are an "Enviromentally Friendly" form of transportation. Parts and accessories too. Not bicycle clothing or shoes though. Still, shows how atitudes in government make all the difference. BTW, this tax exemtion was introduced by a right wing government and has remained in effect though several right/left swings in politics. Bicycles are seen as an alternative transportation, not a political issue.

That's odd. Here there are talks of a tax break for those who commute by bike.

NDbentrider and Detriex.. ND Rider. First I hope the stories about ND are not true. Being a lover of northern Michigan (UP) I have the greatest respect for Scandavian people.. I love the North country- trees and all, so ND was seriously a place I wanted to visit.. Think you have scenic spots equivilant to SD's Badlands..?
Detriex.. Whenever I want to contact someone in state government, I go to Yahoo Government and on that menu go to appropriate state. You can find the appropriate contact through the Yahoo Government search engine.
Being that tax bills originate in State House of Representatives, I went to the ND House Taxation Committee. That is where such bills originate.. I choose the ranking member.. Hopefully this person is critical of whatever..
Bicylists should fight back. We all can be tourists in ND and they should know our feelings. In fact I recall ads in Adventure Cycling Magazine about cycle tours in North Dakota.
ND Rider. You say there is some anti-cyclist fanatic in ND state government. I suggest you should inform us so we all can contact this person. The governor maybe.? ND does not want cycle tourists, they should stop advertising for us ! Snail mail is more effective!
This goes against the grain of even the Federal governmet. Most state governmets and the Fed's talk of tax incentives for commuting on bike. What gives here. Let's not stand by idly..

Originally posted by Poguemahone
Well, given the fact the federal gov'ment is slowly abdicating responsibility and passing unfunded mandates to the states, and the regressive tax schemes used by most states for financing (sales tax, etc., which falls disproportionately on the poor) this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
Here in Virginia, we had a property tax on cars (based on automobile value) which the last irresponsible administration decided to repeal (albeit partially), and now (no surprise here either) we have massive budget shortfalls. Voters refused a recent proposal to raise the sales tax in regions that have desperate gridlock (Hampton Roads/Norfolk) in order to improve said roads and now the state will likely be looking for groups with limited political clout to tax-- i.e. cyclists.... Yeah, we've got the same problems out here in Washington State. The majority of WA voters want something for nothing, so they vote themselves tax cuts and vote themselves major road projects. Our politicians cannot be trusted to come up with a workable and equitable method of taxation, so we're stuck with squabbling over the "devil we do know", instead of seeking progressive change. The one alternative that citizens had to ineffective government, the voter initiave process, has largely been hijacked by monied interests that are very good at spinning their machinations as being in the public interest.
It is dissappointing to see such selfish behavior from people who have grown but not grown up.

On many old bikes I have noticed registration stickers usually issued by the township municipality. I think this was common in the 1970s. Does anyone know about this. Also bicycle license plates are commonly auctioned on Ebay. I don't know what era these are from but it appears to be something that was widely practiced as most states are represented. I guess my point is, "hasn't this been done before?"

cyclezealot:

Thanks for the information on the email addresses.

If I remember right, doesn't ND have no sales tax? This is interesting, I want to follow this thread to see how the lefties respond to this one. BTW- I've been up there. It's not so bad, lots of pheasants :)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ndbentrider
[B]No we are not "feeling unimportant right now."

Having ridden many days and miles in ND--several CANDISC rides included--I consider ND to be a wonderful place to ride. The people are wonderful and the state is NOT all flat.

ndbentrider, is the idiot in question widely regarded as such, or does this tax have a chance of being implemented? As a Minnesotan, who could I contact and suggest that such a tax will harm the state?

Yeah, when I was a kid, the local municipality issued bike plates (later stickers), and they charged maybe $3 for them. It wasn't mandatory, but was rather a form of theft protection.
As far as the lovely state of N. Dakota goes, it was the last state of the lower 48 that I got to visit back when I drove over-the-road. A rather unremarkable state, if you ask me. Wide , flat praries, wind, wind, and more wind. Back roads were often held up by "Hoots" (Hutterites) driving trucks pulling mountain doubles (that's one 48' trailer, followed by a 28' pup trailer) filled with hay. They looked for all the world like Amish truckers.....

Just to shed some light on the proposed bill...

The Bill has 4 sections:
(1) A $35 fine will be issued to anyone who operates a bicycle on a highway or bike path and violates any of the follow provisions.

(2) A cyclist must ride as near to the right as practicable. Cyclists
must ride single file on roadways, may ride 2 abreast on bike paths.
If a bike path exists, the cyclist must use the path and not the road.

(3) A bike operated in the dark must have a front lamp and rear red light and reflective vest. A bike must be equipped which will lock up
the rear wheel.

(4) A cyclist may not ride a bike on a highway outside city limits
without a $50 permit. This section specifies "cross-country racer,
cruiser, touring bike, or racing bike." Fees collected will be used
for construction and maintenance of bike paths.

As you can see there are some flaws with the bill. Group rides are impractical and dangerous on paths (which are shared with runners, in-line skaters, etc.). Also, many serious riders ride outside city limits for safety, being forced to pay the permit fee. Bicycle tourists would also be forced to pay the fee...quite discouraging for CANDISC. Although revenues from this law would go towards the creation of more bike paths, many cyclists here believe that they shouldn't have to pay to use roads they already paid for (when cycling ouside city limits).

BTW, ND does have a sales tax. I believe a few years ago, ND was the least visited state in the country. Although, I do not know where it stands now. I wouldn't be shocked if it's still last.

Originally posted by ndbentrider
No we are not "feeling unimportant right now." We have an anal orifice that is anti biking and is making it his mission to hassle cyclists - this "gentleman" is a know anti-cyclist fanatic. By the way the Cohen(sp) brothers do great films - none , including Fargo, are "long forgotten."

Sorry if I offended anyone. I just was trying to make a point. I figured these "anal orifices" would have better things to do than tax bike riders, like filming the sequel to Fargo or something.

Originally posted by ohsfan
I believe a few years ago, ND was the least visited state in the country. Although, I do not know where it stands now. I wouldn't be shocked if it's still last.

I remember a particularly funny segment on the old Michael Moore show where he sent one of his "reporters" to NoDak to figure out why it was the least visited state. Of course he sent that person in the middle of January. My friends and I all got a good laugh.. especially since we were watching it from a dorm room at UND at the time. |8^)

I lived in Minot ND fo 7 years.. went to college there. North Dakota can have brutal winters but the summers are beautiful. So many of the touring cyclist miss the peace garden area and the North unit of the Theodore Roosevelt NP. They stick to hiway 2, take a picture of the geographical center of North America in Rolla (I think it's Rolla LOL) and head to Fargo. There are areas of ND that while not comparable to my home state of Montana, are still absolutely stunning.
They don't have hutterites in ND.... Montana has lots of them on the hi-line.
A tax such as ND is considering is assinine. Some jerk probably had to move over once for a touring cyclist that was trying to spend money and time in ND.
Doug

Oshfan.. My question- how does this fee compare with car licensing fees. Will the money result in major bike improvements. For $50 I would expect a lot..
Also, legally a car from out of state is licensed you can drive it where ever, when ever.. Should a bike be licensed elsewhere, is that not a restriction on interstate commerce, since many of us consider a bike to be our chosen mode of transportation..
To be fair the tax was then again for two years-? so maybe that is less than the fee for autos...?

Originally posted by khuon
I remember a particularly funny segment on the old Michael Moore show where he sent one of his "reporters" to NoDak to figure out why it was the least visited state. Of course he sent that person in the middle of January. My friends and I all got a good laugh.. especially since we were watching it from a dorm room at UND at the time. |8^)


I know that exact episode! It was "TV Nation" and the reporter for that segment was Karen Duffy (I beleive). Before the segment, they also asked New Yorkers if they wanted $100 or a week-long, all-expense paid vacation to ND. Everyone said they rather take the $100. :p

Originally posted by cyclezealot
Oshfan.. My question- how does this fee compare with car licensing fees. Will the money result in major bike improvements. For $50 I would expect a lot..
Also, legally a car from out of state is licensed you can drive it where ever, when ever.. Should a bike be licensed elsewhere, is that not a restriction on interstate commerce, since many of us consider a bike to be our chosen mode of transportation..
To be fair the tax was then again for two years-? so maybe that is less than the fee for autos...?

Being in the military, I don't register my car in ND. Although I believe it costs about $30/year.
The funds are to be used for the construction/maintenance of bike paths outside city limits.

Yes, the proposed fee would be for a 2 year registration.

Originally posted by ohsfan
Just to shed some light on the proposed bill...


(2) <snip>If a bike path exists, the cyclist must use the path and not the road.

Simply proving what I said before, the whole bill is just a political stunt aimed at keeping motorists happy and to hell with everyone else. What if the path doesn't go where you want to go? What if the path takes 15km longer to get there? What if the path is strewn with broken glass, overhanging branches, pedestrians in groups > 10, dog walkers etc etc (need I go on?).

I notice the word "if it is practical to do so" has been omitted from the bike path provision. Sounds to me like they themselves realise how inadequate most bike paths are. One wonders what sort of bikepaths this $50 charge will fund. If I ever visit the US, remind me never to visit ND, will you?

Originally posted by Chris L
If I ever visit the US, remind me never to visit ND, will you?

I don't think you'll have to worry. You have to go way out of your way to visit North Dakota. Unless you have relatives there or you want to see all the crime scenes that were depicted in the movie Fargo, you won't even know its there.

No, the danger here is of the idea spreading. It's easy to bypass ND and take your tourist dollars elsewhere but not if the tax idea spreads.

originally posted by cyclezealot
how does this fee compare with car licensing fees.

honestly, comparing it to car registration fees makes no sense.

as has been pointed out by others (and on other threads here):
*autos are subsidized
*cyclists are SAVING the public money in comparision to auto users and should get a tax BREAK, as it seems some governemtns in Canada understand.

taxing cycling EVEN if ALL of the money goes to bike facilities is still wrong. autos get millions in facilities and don't even begin to pay for their share. why should cyclists pay EXTRA?

if the issue is bike paths: they either don't need them. or if they are SO important, then they have millions of transportation dollars and need just re-allocate a small amount from auto facilites (oh, but autos are so much more important...) - or maybe they should be working to make sure the next federal TEA passes (hmmm. what is the status, it's up for renewal this year i think?)

the idea that a bicycle, which on average costs a great deal less than a car and requires much less public infrastructure and causes less road wear and damage and less environmental damage and fewer injuries and deaths of others, should pay anything close to a car... is ludicrous

i know that some individual municipalities across the US have tried such things before (maybe some still have laws)

taxes should be to
a) discourage something: cycling should not be discouraged - it's less poluting, etc.
b) something that requires a lot of money: cylcing per mile SAVES the public money
c) luxury items where most users can easily afford the taxes: again wrong. for example: kids

it makes no sense. hopefully the ridiculous idea will die before other crazies in other states pick up the idea. if they need money so bad, maybe they should consider taxing auo users for a larger portion of their costs... (but the trend is the opposite as states such as Washington and Virginia and a few others have REVERSED their progressive auto registration to absurdly cheap flat-rate fees)

Originally posted by nathank
it makes no sense. hopefully the ridiculous idea will die before other crazies in other states pick up the idea. if they need money so bad, maybe they should consider taxing auo users for a larger portion of their costs... (but the trend is the opposite as states such as Washington and Virginia and a few others have REVERSED their progressive auto registration to absurdly cheap flat-rate fees)

In the state of WA, you can thank the idiot Tim Eyman for that bit. Even more so, you can blame the general public for having voted that bill in. I really hope this bill (http://www.horsesass.org/Initiative.html) passes to discourage such future behaviour.

It would've been one thing for Eyman's initiatives to have resulted in decreased car usage due to decreased road funding but instead it's other forms of transportation such as public bus transport and ferries (transportation alternatives that are good for pedestrians and cyclists because they all allow bikes) that get hurt.

Because of initiative 695 and 745, things like the passenger/bike-only ferries are being cut making it all the more harder for cycle-commuters. Instead the car-ferries (soon to be the only ferries operating) are more expensive to everyone alike so that those funds can help offset the car-commuting crowd. I'm a pragmatic individual. I understand that the general public will not want to drive less and that's why any initiative for cheaper auto taxes will only result in the money for roads and transportation coming out of somewhere else. And usually somewhere else that is already lacking in funding.

Nathank.. I agree completely. Bike commuting saves the state money... It is really a ploy by anti cycling factons to harm cycling..
But, what I had in mind- years ago bikes were required to have a bike license, usually going to the city involved.
bikes would have little license plates- showing it registered to a city.. I would only be supportive if its' licensure insured bikes are equal in status to cars..
Seems the bike licenses were used to help identify bikes with the police deparment(?) , but more than likely just a fund raising source for cities.. Any cyclists out there have to license your bike to some locality?

khuon,

yes, i was in Oregon at the time of the initiative 795 (i think) and i was horrified what was happening across the border. that guy Tim Eyemann was a freak! the campaign they ran was just plain stupid -- basically saying "no one needs to pay taxes for any reason" and the gullible "yeah, i don't like taxes - let's vote them down!" went along with the slick money-financed, but supposedly grassroots campaign...

i assume they got rid of the provision that required for a ballot vote for ANY increase in ANY tax that was also included in their little initiative- if i remember even things like library fines and local public pool fees were included under this - ridiculous - requiring a ballot measure of the public to raise the pool fee from $.75 to $1.25! anyway, i assume this part has since been fixed, but i haven't followed it.

but it was a VERY scary movement in Washington state - the "no taxes" crowd... if they REALLY believe in no taxes then that's another thing, but the US is NOT set up as a no-tax place as all levels of our government are dependent on taxes (property, income, user fees, etc) --- the idea that driving should not only be free but heavily subsidized at the expense of other services under the guise of "no taxes" is a farce and just a political move by the auto-forces. (i.e. millions of dollars of TAX money go to auto services in Washington and pretending otherwise as "freedom and no taxes" is just game-playing)

Nathank.. I suspect that is just life in the US... It is a very libertarian nation.. Many argue that a federal income tax is against the original concept of the US. Recall the original Confederation disallowed almost all federal taxes except for import fees.
Many libertarian types argue today the Federal Income tax is illegal. That is why services are so poorlly funded.. Many states require express approval for many services, if property taxes are effected. That is why you hit at the income tax the other levels of taxation are regressive- anti tax groups know services will have to be provided on the backs of the poor.
I know in Germany to see how services are provided here is a shock.. the trains run and you have public transport and health coverage. But, no taxation no services..

Nathank.. I suspect that is just life in the US... It is a very libertarian nation.. Many argue that a federal income tax is against the original concept of the US. Recall the original Confederation disallowed almost all federal taxes except for import fees.

cyclezealot,

i'm somewhat familiar with libertarian idea in the US... and they have some good points and some merit to many of their principles. i find it very interesting...

what i meant was that in this case the "no-tax" cry is bogus. a libertarian perspective would be that there should be no taxes to collected to pay for general services - i.e. that each user should pay his own costs. since the government is paying for all the auto infrastructure costs (road construction, maintenance, police, traffic controls, etc) wiht public dollars, the LOWERING of the user fee made it less libertarian - i.e. paid for more by the general public than just those who use it.

Libertarianism is very attractive on the surface and with true supporters i have difficulty finding many complaints/faults. personally, i think it would be nice if it would work, but millions of people in a social system tend to create problems that are often better managed from the top - well, i don't really want to start a debate on libertarianism here, so i better stop.

but i do really dislike the "faux-libertarians" who just want to get THEIR break and have others pay for their services (i.e. drive a huge $40k Suburban but pass on the societal costs to someone else under the guise of "no-taxes")

Nathank.. Yes, much about Libertarian ideas I approve.. Like, protecting the Bill of Rights , Free Speech and Privacy Issues.. I think our love of cycling as our form of transport could faguely be linked to a First Amendment right..
I have doubts when you start applying libertarian beliefs to today's economics. In a day of Monopolistic enterprises, I think there is no such thing as a Free Market economy.
But my comment about Libertarian ideas... Many Americans think paying taxes as an total enfringment upon their freedoms.. Well, at the American revolution taxes were voluntary or else taxes on imports.. So, most of the American Revolution was financed by the French- since we had no revenues.. And the story continues, except there is always an extra $250 B. to finance our entry into Iraq... that would pay for a lot of bike lanes..
Oh, by the way. Maybe one way to effect Norht Dakota is to contact their tourism office email sites- tell North Dakota Tourism what you think of cycle touring ND and why do the advertism in Cycle touring Magazines if they want to discourage cyclism so much.

Looks like this bill failed...

From: "Riley Geary" <riley.geary@zzapp.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: ND SB 2391 Update -- We Won!
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 23:50:58 -0500
Lines: 29
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
NNTP-Posting-Host: sl46.zzapp.org
Message-ID: <3e448cb8_4@vienna7.his.com>
X-Trace: vienna7.his.com 1044679864 sl46.zzapp.org (7 Feb 2003 23:51:04 -0500)
Organization: Heller Information Services
Path: sun-news.laserlink.net!newsfeed4.cidera.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!news.maxwell.syr.edu!iad-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!vienna7.his.com
Xref: sun-news.laserlink.net rec.bicycles.misc:242998 rec.bicycles.soc:124972

Thanks to a huge outpouring of opposition from cyclists across the country
and beyond, and a devastating expose in the Bismarck Tribune about the
sordid history of the bill's principal author (available now at
http://www.bismarcktribune.com/30dayarchives/articles/n020503b.html ), SB
2391 received a "Do Not Pass" recommendation from the ND Senate
Transportation Committee at Thursday's hearing (5-0, with one absent and not
voting). That should be the end of the matter now for all practical
purposes: no $50 registration fees, and no mandatory single file rule, etc.

I even received a private reply from one of the original sponsors of SB 2391
to the effect that "as occasionally happens in this process, the law of
unintended consequences kicked in and it quickly became apparent that this
is a bad bill which should summarily be dispensed with"--so even among its
backers, no one was willing to risk public ridicule or worse to try and
defend this particularly loathsome piece of anti-cycling legislation (the
text of which can still be viewed as a pdf file at
http://www.state.nd.us/lr/assembly/58-2003/bill_text/DBNC0100.pdf ).

Major kudos to all those who took the time to write to the sponsors of SB
2391 and the various members of the ND Senate Transportation Committee, a
truly inspiring example of cyclists using the internet to defend their
interests via the political process!

Riley Geary
Arlington, VA

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris L
[B]But of course, in the real world we all know this won't actually happen. That is simply not the idea behind a 'bicycle tax'. It's simply a political stunt to satisfy the motoring primates who don't want to share the road with bicycles. The old "we pay taxes and they don't" is simply the means they use to justify their bigotry.

Hmmm... I read these letters in the paper about people moaning that cyclists get away without paying tax to be quite honest we should never ever have to pay tax we don't cause any damage to the road or the environment!!!! ;) Well this particular person writing this letter was totally against cyclists I think they are just small minded they would never think of getting off their fat asses and cycling!!! She was also moaning about the cycle races that take place about 12 miles from me on a regular basis surely she must realise that these cyclists DO PAY for licences to race!!!!!! :mad: How many times have u personally been riding thru traffic jams and u get really dirty looks off motorists who are so peeved off because they think that u are getting sumwhere faster than them!!! but if u stopped ur bike and said ok u ride my bike and I'll drive ur car I don't think so!!!!!!

Simply selfish most of these people I drive (only when I have too), cycle and ride horses!!!! drivers attitudes towards cyclists have to change!!!!! and damn fast I say too!!! :D

khuon,

Thanks for the good links. I'm so thankful that the bill did not pass.

It appears that the state of North Dakota has been getting some negative press lately:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3904/north_dakota.html

A friend sent that to me the other day! :p

I couldn't stop laughing! :D

Originally posted by danr
It appears that the state of North Dakota has been getting some negative press lately:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3904/north_dakota.html

When I lived in NoDak, my friends and I used to joke that if the state ever suceeded, it could be another nuclear superpower. |8^)

As appalling as this State Senator is; I do not particularily like anti-No. Dakota rants... The Plains I find less appealing than the wooded northern part of the Mid-west. But N.D. supposedly has some beautiful country in its Badlands... Some Dump on Minnesota also.. I like the accent, like Scandavian people, and like the north-land; except in the depths of winter.. People who live there are not backwards, but lucky with their pristine fishing lakes and clear streams; except for january..

I"But N.D. supposedly has some beautiful country in its Badlands..."

It's not just the badlands though... North Central ND is BEAUTIFUL... with The International Peace Garden at the center. The lakes up there are amazing... canoe trails going deep into the true wilderness..... Nice people... I'm definetely going to cycle more of it soon.
Doug