Seattle bike registration proposal

[unixpro]

Doesn't look like it would go anywhere, but this was in the PI this morning:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/344924_bicyclelicense26.html

It doesn't make sense. I own two cars that I pay excise and gas taxes on, plus my property taxes, plus all my sales taxes, plus a boatload of other taxes. These programs, by their own admission, don't raise enough money to pay for their own administration.

Way to encourage the use of alternative transportation methods.

[East Hill]

I saw that, and posted the link in A & S.

We'd still have people honking, cursing, throwing things, and just hatin' on us for being there :( .

East Hill

[ngateguy]

I wonder how they plan on dealing with those of us who do not live in Seattle but ride there.

[East Hill]

I wonder how they plan on dealing with those of us who do not live in Seattle but ride there.

Uhhh...uhhh...uhhh....

:roflmao:

East Hill

[unixpro]

I was kind of wondering the same thing myself. I live in Burien, but commute in every day. I've even been known to ride up here on the weekends!

Read the comments on the article. Some are positively vitriolic! I guess the fact that I own and pay taxes on two cars that I hardly use except on the weekends, don't take up parking spaces, am far less of a burden on the medical infrastructure, and don't consume my share of fossil fuels makes me a bad, bad person.

[HardyWeinberg]

Read the comments on the article. Some are positively vitriolic!

Oh great, roadrage on the PI website...

[FlowerBlossom]

I saw that, and posted the link in A & S.

We'd still have people honking, cursing, throwing things, and just hatin' on us for being there :( .

East Hill

And no real police protection or support otherwise for the bicyclist when it does happen.

The woman sited in the article who suggested the fees must be someone who lives in Lake Forest Park.

Speaking of which, did you notice the new LFP effort to kill the Birke-Gilman. Silly, really, what some people do with their spare time.

http://www.cascade.org/Advocacy/burkegilmanlfp.cfm

[ngateguy]

WE have to stop spending any of our dollars in LFP until they stop this cr@p

[FlowerBlossom]

Back to the OP's topic, I wonder if the PI reporter wasn't needing a story during a low-news between holidays week? I can't otherwise explain the silliness of the whole idea.

[East Hill]

Back to the OP's topic, I wonder if the PI reporter wasn't needing a story during a low-news between holidays week? I can't otherwise explain the silliness of the whole idea.

I must say, that when I saw that as the front page HEADLINE I really had to wonder.

I agree with ngateguy, stop buying stuff in LFP and start sending letters to the editor explaining why.

East Hill

[Jim Bushard]

It would take away one argument that we don't pay for road usage however they would still run us over.

[mattm]

Doesn't look like it would go anywhere, but this was in the PI this morning:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/344924_bicyclelicense26.html

It doesn't make sense. I own two cars that I pay excise and gas taxes on, plus my property taxes, plus all my sales taxes, plus a boatload of other taxes. These programs, by their own admission, don't raise enough money to pay for their own administration.

Way to encourage the use of alternative transportation methods.

i don't own a car or a house, or a boat, and have zero apologies for not paying taxes on roads! the city/county/state can take away all of the bike lanes, trails, all of it - and i'd still ride the roads no matter what.

this whole idea is nothing more than a way to 'stick it to' critical mass, see this quote from the article:

"It all started in Minneapolis, where registration used to be mandatory. In a crackdown meant to curtail street confrontations during a series of cycling protests, police began confiscating unregistered bikes, Anderson said. "The bike advocates didn't like that, and so they dropped their support for the registration," Anderson said. "Until that time, there had been little or no enforcement at all on the bike registration requirement.""

[donnamb]

It would take away one argument that we don't pay for road usage however they would still run us over.
It still wouldn't throw a cent towards "road usage". It would force King County to figure out where to get the money to pay for a registration program, since it wouldn't even raise enough money to pay for the paperwork, let alone the LEO time to actually enforce it. Peoples' ignorance never ceases to amaze me.

WE have to stop spending any of our dollars in LFP until they stop this cr@p
Stop spending, write business explaining why, write the newspapers, call the TV stations. As we've learned in Portland, embarrassment can be a powerful tool. :D I'd also not let up on the fiscal conservative aspect of the stupidity. You'd get a wider swath of the population thinking twice if it's clear a program can't pay for itself.

[marqueemoon]

What's next? Denying bike licenses to illegal immigrants?

Oh, and Lake Forest Park can suck it.

[East Hill]

It still wouldn't throw a cent towards "road usage". It would force King County to figure out where to get the money to pay for a registration program, since it wouldn't even raise enough money to pay for the paperwork, let alone the LEO time to actually enforce it. Peoples' ignorance never ceases to amaze me.


Stop spending, write business explaining why, write the newspapers, call the TV stations. As we've learned in Portland, embarrassment can be a powerful tool. :D I'd also not let up on the fiscal conservative aspect of the stupidity. You'd get a wider swath of the population thinking twice if it's clear a program can't pay for itself.


As far as I can tell, the registration appears to be restricted to Seattle City, not King County, which is why it's really absurd. Most of us do not live in Seattle City, but other jurisdictions within King County.

Knowing LFP, I would not be a bit surprised if they instituted a separate license for cyclists riding on the Burke-Gilman Trail, just because that city is so adamant against having the BGT exist. They will, and have, lost that battle, but that doesn't mean that the city won't continue to harass cyclists.

East Hill

[velocity]

So I suppose that they would have an exemption for children? They can't even keep helmets on kids heads that are under 16 years old what makes them think that they can manage this? Last response to this is did they forget that they too road bikes as a systematic education to exercise and its benefits. This supports the fattening of America and the carp that is in the heads of politicians.
Velocity

[HardyWeinberg]

i don't own a car or a house, or a boat, and have zero apologies for not paying taxes on roads!


Do you rent a house or apt?

[bizzz111]

just another money grab by the money hungry politicians in seattle. They don't care if the tax offers any benefits, reduces congestion, or makes cyclists safer, they just want the tax on the books, and the extra government employees.

Whatever it takes to keep the government creep moving steadily forward. The fact that someone sarcastically mentioned a "pedestrian tax" to pay for sidewalks should watch out. I'm sure it's the next thing coming once this gets in place.

[ngateguy]

More from the editorial page of the P-I :

We understand the thinking behind the discussion as to whether cyclists should be licensed and registered in our region. After all, they benefit from use of the roads, so why shouldn't they share the burden of paying for it?

Because so far, there's little evidence that getting cyclists to pay, say, $8 (as is done in Davis, Calif.) will result in enough revenue to make a difference. Charging more can discourage cyclists from riding, which would be a shame, because by virtue of choosing to bicycle, they're lessening the wear and damage done to our roads, in addition to doing their part to reduce pollution.

Riding a bike in these parts can be a rough experience as it is. Our city is hilly, rainy and sometimes windy. We don't have nearly enough bike paths and just watching cyclists brave the "sharrows" with barreling SUVs is enough to put an observer on edge. At the same time, we're struggling to figure out how to move people around the city in the greenest possible manner, while avoiding traffic jams and megaconstruction projects. So this is not the time to start making cyclists pay for their conscientious choice.

Furthermore, registering one's bike should be optional, and in no way should one's cycling infractions appear on one's driving record. What's next, dinging a driver's record for jaywalking?

Having said that, we feel that bicycle safety courses ought to be part of the school curriculum, and perhaps police could be more aggressive in ticketing reckless cyclists. But charge cyclists for doing the right thing? No way.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/344964_bikeed.html

[CliftonGK1]

The LFP vs. the B-G Trail argument has been raging on for years. The reason the previous anti B-G Trail measure was repealed is because of the advocacy work of the Cascade Bicycle Club. For anyone who rides the B-G, do you remember back in the spring, there were folding tables staffed by teams of people asking for your ZIP Code as you rode past? They were collecting metrics on how far people were commuting on the B-G based on the ZIP you live in versus the ZIP they collected the data in. It proved that the B-G Trail is indeed an important commuter throughway and that LFP had no right to post stop signs on the B-G where it crosses private roads.
The newest measure proposed by LFP is to not only reinstate the stop signs, but also place control gates at each crossing (those metal barricades which make you do a long S-turn to get through them). The sole reasoning for this is the irritation that a few influential council members face while piloting their luxury cars to/from their mcmansions. Over the summer I met one of the board members for CBC while on my commute home. We discussed the LFP issues, and he told me about a survey which he teamed up in the LFP area along the B-G Trail. Over 90% of the homeowners polled stated they were either against stopping traffic on the B-G, or simply unconcerned with the issue because they don't feel inconvenienced by trail traffic. Apparently, the loudest proponent of the anti B-G measures happens to have a seat on LFP City Council, and this is why measures, no matter how ridiculous or outright illegal, seem to pass.

Sign up for the Cascade Bicycle Club's email newsletter. If you really want to help out, volunteer or go to an LFP city council meeting and voice your opinion on the matter.

[FlowerBlossom]

The LFP vs. the B-G Trail argument has been raging on for years. The reason the previous anti B-G Trail measure was repealed is because of the advocacy work of the Cascade Bicycle Club. For anyone who rides the B-G, do you remember back in the spring, there were folding tables staffed by teams of people asking for your ZIP Code as you rode past? They were collecting metrics on how far people were commuting on the B-G based on the ZIP you live in versus the ZIP they collected the data in. It proved that the B-G Trail is indeed an important commuter throughway and that LFP had no right to post stop signs on the B-G where it crosses private roads.
The newest measure proposed by LFP is to not only reinstate the stop signs, but also place control gates at each crossing (those metal barricades which make you do a long S-turn to get through them). The sole reasoning for this is the irritation that a few influential council members face while piloting their luxury cars to/from their mcmansions. Over the summer I met one of the board members for CBC while on my commute home. We discussed the LFP issues, and he told me about a survey which he teamed up in the LFP area along the B-G Trail. Over 90% of the homeowners polled stated they were either against stopping traffic on the B-G, or simply unconcerned with the issue because they don't feel inconvenienced by trail traffic. Apparently, the loudest proponent of the anti B-G measures happens to have a seat on LFP City Council, and this is why measures, no matter how ridiculous or outright illegal, seem to pass.

Sign up for the Cascade Bicycle Club's email newsletter. If you really want to help out, volunteer or go to an LFP city council meeting and voice your opinion on the matter.

Very interesting information. I'm glad they took the time to do the zipcode and the homeowner survey. It's always good to have data to back you up.

[marqueemoon]

Very interesting information. I'm glad they took the time to do the zipcode and the homeowner survey. It's always good to have data to back you up.

This is why Cascade gets my money.

[East Hill]

I remember when the survey takers were out there. I happened to be on the Cedar River Trail for one set, came back home via Big Soos Creek where there was ANOTHER set, and the following day noticed another set was on the southern Interurban/GRT intersection. I stopped at all three sets of survey takers and filled in the survey, because I want my voice to be heard.

East Hill

[jackcoke]

I think fat people have now gained the majority in the US. We are doomed.

[jackcoke]

There could be a positive side to bike registration. I lived in Japan for a bit and they require all bikes to be registered with the police. You also are required to carry your registration on you while riding, transfer it when selling a bike. They do routine stops as well, even though I was never stopped. This makes stealing a bike a lot less rewarding for the crooks because selling it is very difficult. You lock your bike there to prevent people from borrowing it more than stealing it.

[CliftonGK1]

There could be a positive side to bike registration. I lived in Japan for a bit and they require all bikes to be registered with the police. You also are required to carry your registration on you while riding, transfer it when selling a bike. They do routine stops as well, even though I was never stopped. This makes stealing a bike a lot less rewarding for the crooks because selling it is very difficult. You lock your bike there to prevent people from borrowing it more than stealing it.

Considering that you can currently register your bike with your city's police department, and they still won't put any effort into helping you recover it whether it's a $50 Goodwill special or an $8000 racing bike, I doubt that a registration program which won't even cover its own administrative fees is going to curtail bicycle theft in the city. Especially in an area where most stolen bikes are sold via cash transaction on Craigslist, not through any shops.
I'm all for registration if it's worthwhile. Will it help the police recover my bike if it gets stolen? Will it help maintain and add to the bicycle infrastructure of the city (bike lanes, bike path maintenance, etc.)? Will it help curtail driver hostility toward cyclists by strengthening the ability to prosecute lawbreakers; both drivers *and* cyclists? (The current laws suck. Yes, we passed a no-texting while driving law. It's a secondary offense and you can't be pulled over for it, so what the hell good is the law?)