Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) - Bicycle license

I know this is probably not the right place to post this but I hang out here the most. I saw this on the news this morning:
Legislation filed to require bicycle driver's licenses
This bill requires all persons who operate or ride a bicycle on a primary or secondary road to have a bicyclist's license. A nonresident bicyclist is not required to obtain a license. A license is not required to ride on a municipal street or designated bicycle path. A license is also not required to ride a bicycle while participating in a race or event of more than 30 participants where one of the primary activities is riding a bicycle. A person who violates the new requirement is guilty of a simple misdemeanor and must pay a scheduled fine of $10.

At a time when we should be encouraging more bicycling, the legislature is proposing another barrier. What is most troublesome is many cyclists, will just hang up their bikes - adding to traffic congestion, air pollution, and more damage to our roads.

Do we really need to ask our third graders to cough up $10 so they can ride their bikes to school rather than suffer from obesity related health issues?

And they wonder why people are moving out of this state. Hell now I really want out of here.

I know this is probably not the right place to post this but I hang out here the most. I saw this on the news this morning:
Legislation filed to require bicycle driver's licenses
This bill requires all persons who operate or ride a bicycle on a primary or secondary road to have a bicyclist's license. A nonresident bicyclist is not required to obtain a license. A license is not required to ride on a municipal street or designated bicycle path. A license is also not required to ride a bicycle while participating in a race or event of more than 30 participants where one of the primary activities is riding a bicycle. A person who violates the new requirement is guilty of a simple misdemeanor and must pay a scheduled fine of $10.

At a time when we should be encouraging more bicycling, the legislature is proposing another barrier. What is most troublesome is many cyclists, will just hang up their bikes - adding to traffic congestion, air pollution, and more damage to our roads.

Do we really need to ask our third graders to cough up $10 so they can ride their bikes to school rather than suffer from obesity related health issues?

And they wonder why people are moving out of this state. Hell now I really want out of here.

What state please?

Iowa. Sorry.

Iowa. Sorry.

thanks

This is all backlash over that lawsuit from RAGBRAI against one of the counties, there in Iowa. You need to file a constitutional challenge in that it restricts the right to travel.I know this is probably not the right place to post this but I hang out here the most. I saw this on the news this morning:
Legislation filed to require bicycle driver's licenses
This bill requires all persons who operate or ride a bicycle on a primary or secondary road to have a bicyclist's license. A nonresident bicyclist is not required to obtain a license. A license is not required to ride on a municipal street or designated bicycle path. A license is also not required to ride a bicycle while participating in a race or event of more than 30 participants where one of the primary activities is riding a bicycle. A person who violates the new requirement is guilty of a simple misdemeanor and must pay a scheduled fine of $10.

At a time when we should be encouraging more bicycling, the legislature is proposing another barrier. What is most troublesome is many cyclists, will just hang up their bikes - adding to traffic congestion, air pollution, and more damage to our roads.

Do we really need to ask our third graders to cough up $10 so they can ride their bikes to school rather than suffer from obesity related health issues?

And they wonder why people are moving out of this state. Hell now I really want out of here.

Yeah, this is topic that needs discussion in all forums, not just here. As an Iowa resident, a clyde, and avid outdoor enthusist, I want everyone to be on a bike. Personally, in my family, my mother wouldn't ride if it cost her 10 dollars a year. It would be one more excuse to keep her off the bike, and here bike would be relegated to the garage. How many other mothers, fathers, friends and neighbors do we know that would just hang it up if they had to pay 10 bucks a year to ride on public road? Personally, isn't that what I pay taxes for? To have maintenance and repair done to the streets and roads that we drive and ride? Anyway, I'm prolly ranting, so I'm out..............

Nate

Exactly Tom, when you restrict one's right to travel by whatever means, then we are getting into scary territory. My senator may get to know me on a first name basis....lol

I know this is probably not the right place to post this but I hang out here the most. I saw this on the news this morning:
Legislation filed to require bicycle driver's licenses
This bill requires all persons who operate or ride a bicycle on a primary or secondary road to have a bicyclist's license. A nonresident bicyclist is not required to obtain a license. A license is not required to ride on a municipal street or designated bicycle path. A license is also not required to ride a bicycle while participating in a race or event of more than 30 participants where one of the primary activities is riding a bicycle. A person who violates the new requirement is guilty of a simple misdemeanor and must pay a scheduled fine of $10.


Let me play devils advocate here for a minute.

Licensing a bicycle rider is not entirely a bad thing, although from what you write it looks like a simple tax grab. Here the province (Ontario) has gone the opposite way, in that they now exempt bicycles under $1000 from the Provincial Sales Tax (8%). This has of course meant that a lot of models that were just over $1000 are now selling for $999 to beat the tax.

Now licensing bicyclists is not entirely a bad thing, in that, if implemented properly, it allows police to pull over wrong way cyclists, red light/stop sign runners, sidewalk riders and others poor in cycling skills and deal with those issues appropriately. Making cycling better and safer for the proper cyclists.

Often the best way to do this, is to add it as a rider to a drivers license, so if you have a drivers or motorcyclist's license then you automatically have a bicyclists license too. It would only be those few riders who do not have a drivers license who would require it. A good opportunity for the state is to exempt riders under a certain age, say 10, then add a bicyclists course to the grade 4 physical education program, that issues the participant a (free) license good for 6 years. At the end of the 6 years they can either apply for a drivers license or renew their bicyclists license. A bicyclists license in this case would look exactly like a drivers license but would be a different class.

I am not entirely against a bicycle license plate either, for much the same reasons, plus it would cut down on thefts, because you could not plate a stolen bicycle, and found bicycles could be more easily reunited with their owners by police. A bicycle license plate in this case should be the same size as a motorcycle plate, with a similar mounting position.

Exactly Tom, when you restrict one's right to travel by whatever means, then we are getting into scary territory. My senator may get to know me on a first name basis....lol
A bike license doesn't restrict one's travel any more than a drivers license restricts car driving. I haven't yet figured out if I'm for or against bike licenses, but after reading the threads in the advocacy forum, I can see there are definitely some positive aspects of licensing.

Also of interest, there are already 2 threads about bikes and licenses in the advocacy forum:
General: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=379282
Iowa: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=379470

So, pedestrians interact with traffic as well.....

Why not a Joggers license or walkers, while we are at it? A bicycle is human powered.

Let me play devils advocate here for a minute.

Licensing a bicycle rider is not entirely a bad thing, although from what you write it looks like a simple tax grab. Here the province (Ontario) has gone the opposite way, in that they now exempt bicycles under $1000 from the Provincial Sales Tax (8%). This has of course meant that a lot of models that were just over $1000 are now selling for $999 to beat the tax.

Now licensing bicyclists is not entirely a bad thing, in that, if implemented properly, it allows police to pull over wrong way cyclists, red light/stop sign runners, sidewalk riders and others poor in cycling skills and deal with those issues appropriately. Making cycling better and safer for the proper cyclists.

Often the best way to do this, is to add it as a rider to a drivers license, so if you have a drivers or motorcyclist's license then you automatically have a bicyclists license too. It would only be those few riders who do not have a drivers license who would require it. A good opportunity for the state is to exempt riders under a certain age, say 10, then add a bicyclists course to the grade 4 physical education program, that issues the participant a (free) license good for 6 years. At the end of the 6 years they can either apply for a drivers license or renew their bicyclists license. A bicyclists license in this case would look exactly like a drivers license but would be a different class.

I am not entirely against a bicycle license plate either, for much the same reasons, plus it would cut down on thefts, because you could not plate a stolen bicycle, and found bicycles could be more easily reunited with their owners by police. A bicycle license plate in this case should be the same size as a motorcycle plate, with a similar mounting position.


Here in Iowa we already pay a 5% sales tax and in the loser city of Ames we pay 7%. This tax is payed on money that is already been taxed by the state and the city so they taxes off that dollar twice.

As far as policing bikes go we are already under all the same laws as a car. If I run a red light a cop can pull me over and write me a ticket. In fact the police here will set up sting operations for it. I applaud them as a CDL holder who has faced these guys dashing out in front of a 40,000 lb vehicle with air brakes.

I understand you are playing diablo advocate here but this is just to make money for the state the wrong way. I do not own a car because I am got burned out driving. I choose to ride my bike to get in better shape, protect the environment and to not support terrorist and dictators around the world. My feeling are that I do not owe the state more money. If they want to tax someone tax the soccer dad who drives the 4x4 diesel ford to and from the grocery store. They should pay another $1000 a year for state and federal to go to the fight on the war on terror and repair our roads. My bike does not rip up the roads like they do.

Hell I think we all should get a tax break for what we do.

Tom, this is being beat to death in A&S, this should be moved and combined over there.

Fortunately for me, South Carolina has had a long sad history with civil rights violations. A tax such as this, and it is a tax, not a licensing, would probably be seen as racist, as it would be used as a means to jail people of color indiscriminately. Every new law in this state gets reviewed as to the civil rights impact, even new no-smoking laws.

I am in Iowa, and I will look into this and fight it if I can. We already have places in town that we can get ticketed for riding a bicycle on the street, sidewalk or anywhere in our downtown. I don't know when it got passed, but there have been people fined for riding a bicycle legally, but those certain streets it is illegal.

I am in Iowa, and I will look into this and fight it if I can. We already have places in town that we can get ticketed for riding a bicycle on the street, sidewalk or anywhere in our downtown. I don't know when it got passed, but there have been people fined for riding a bicycle legally, but those certain streets it is illegal.

I am not trying to mislead people here. It has not been passed yet. A senator is talking about introducing it.

I think I'll let it stand for now......

There is the focus that it's already hard enough to keep motivation going sometimes for us bigger folk, and putting roadblocks in the way just make it harder......:mad:

Tom, this is being beat to death in A&S, this should be moved and combined over there.

Fortunately for me, South Carolina has had a long sad history with civil rights violations. A tax such as this, and it is a tax, not a licensing, would probably be seen as racist, as it would be used as a means to jail people of color indiscriminately. Every new law in this state gets reviewed as to the civil rights impact, even new no-smoking laws.

Typical over-reactive legislative bulls***. I'm a big-gov Democrat by choice (I ttust strangers in Washington more than I trust my neighbors), but this is just asinine. How you gonna license 25 million elementary school kids.

Just another step in the Government's plan to replace the funds lost when folks can't afford to drive their cars any more. Look for states to start requiring we register and license our bikes (and roller blades, skate boards, etc.) yearly, and get liability insurance, just like we have to for cars.

I am not trying to mislead people here. It has not been passed yet. A senator is talking about introducing it.


Who is wanting to introduce this? Can you send me a link or two about it?

You can post it up, or PM it to me, either way is fine!!!

Can some tell me the differnece between a primary\secondary road and a municiple street? I see them as one and the same. You can't ride on highways or roads without traffice controls such as lights and stop signs I know, or am I missing something

Thanks for the PM, thaetviking.

I think primary road is a state highway, and the secondary road is the county roads, or some are called county highways. We have Highway 34 and county road 34, which is really new 34 and old 34. The problem is that both of those become a municiple street when they are within city limits. We can ride on anything other than an Interstate system as far as I am aware. I tried digging up information, but the links seem to be dead that show the laws regarding bicycles, in Iowa.

ah, ok. Yea same here, as long as it has some sort of traffic control, you can ride a bike on it.

Here in Iowa we already pay a 5% sales tax and in the loser city of Ames we pay 7%. This tax is payed on money that is already been taxed by the state and the city so they taxes off that dollar twice.

As far as policing bikes go we are already under all the same laws as a car. If I run a red light a cop can pull me over and write me a ticket. In fact the police here will set up sting operations for it. I applaud them as a CDL holder who has faced these guys dashing out in front of a 40,000 lb vehicle with air brakes.

I understand you are playing diablo advocate here but this is just to make money for the state the wrong way. I do not own a car because I am got burned out driving. I choose to ride my bike to get in better shape, protect the environment and to not support terrorist and dictators around the world. My feeling are that I do not owe the state more money. If they want to tax someone tax the soccer dad who drives the 4x4 diesel ford to and from the grocery store. They should pay another $1000 a year for state and federal to go to the fight on the war on terror and repair our roads. My bike does not rip up the roads like they do.

Hell I think we all should get a tax break for what we do.

Heck most of those SUVs would be better if they were diesel, some of the gas powered ones spew more pollutants then a city bus at crush load capacity. Don't get me started on the war on terror.

Of course, back on track if the state were interested in preventing cycling accidents, caused by poor cycling habits, they would simply add a requirement to carry valid Government Issued Photo ID when riding, to be made available to police officers upon request. What determines when a police officer can make such a request, is a constitutional matter. They could issue an ID card for folks who do not have other ID, for say $10 every 5 years or so..... As for motor vehicle taxes, simply add a new $3/gallon tax on gasoline. :D

The various states already issue a nondrivers ID, administered by the various DMV's or whatever they call the department in a particular state.

Heck most of those SUVs would be better if they were diesel, some of the gas powered ones spew more pollutants then a city bus at crush load capacity. Don't get me started on the war on terror.

Of course, back on track if the state were interested in preventing cycling accidents, caused by poor cycling habits, they would simply add a requirement to carry valid Government Issued Photo ID when riding, to be made available to police officers upon request. What determines when a police officer can make such a request, is a constitutional matter. They could issue an ID card for folks who do not have other ID, for say $10 every 5 years or so..... As for motor vehicle taxes, simply add a new $3/gallon tax on gasoline. :D

ah, ok. Yea same here, as long as it has some sort of traffic control, you can ride a bike on it.

I have seen the 300 year olds driving in Florida, I would probably find a bike path. :D

The various states already issue a nondrivers ID, administered by the various DMV's or whatever they call the department in a particular state.

We don't have them in all provinces in Canada, for example Ontario doesn't, but they do have photos on most health cards, so you could use that as government issued ID, a passport is also government issued photo-id, but passports do not have addresses, even though I think they should.

Like I said, if the state is using it for identification purposes to identify those with poor cycling habits, to issue the ticket to the proper individual, there are easier ways to do it, without adding even more crap to carry in a wallet, like the requirement to simply carry ID. Also handy if the the soccer mom in the SUV with makeup case in one hand, and cell phone in the other misses the bright yellow jacket, the bike light and the helmet light, so that police can identify the body more easily. So really it sounds like a tax grab.

Okay, another thing, people who use it as an excuse not to ride, wouldn't anyway. The same people who whine about not wanting to spend the $10 on a bicycle license, would have no trouble finding $5,000 to renew a drivers license if the state made them that price.

I don't think I would have a problem with shelling out a yearly license registration fee for the right to ride my bicycle on roads funded and maintained partially by gas tax. This of course is provided that it is an actual license endorsement including a written test to demonstrate knowledge of local law and proper operation of said bicycle. Why shouldn't we have license plates for our bikes? It would help to identify the rider and assist law enforcement. Wouldn't it be great if some of the collected money would be put into bicycle advocacy and trail development. While were at it I also feel that bicycles used for transportation on the street should at least carry some liability insurance. Face it, bicycles can do damage to personal property.

Everyone who commutes and rides wants to be treated as a vehicle while in traffic, well, you got to pay to play. Its funny how I notice that some riders want to be treated a vehicle in one situation then cry "I'm a pedestrian" next. Which is it, is it whatever is more convenient at the moment? Do you really think people are going to quit riding over a registration fee? How much does the average rider spend on bike gadgets in a year? It would only be a drop in the bucket.

The office coffee pot is broken. :mad:

Bau w/coffee nerves

I already pay my taxes. If you start licensing bikes all you will accomplish is to decrease the amount of people riding bikes - period.

Riding a bike isn't operating a motor vehicle, heavy machinery, airplane or rocket...it's riding a bike, a very simple form of transportation that can be done by most anyone, at anytime, with minimal skill, preparation, fuss and cost. Let's keep it that way, m'kay?

I don't think I would have a problem with shelling out a yearly license registration fee for the right to ride my bicycle on roads funded and maintained partially by gas tax. This of course is provided that it is an actual license endorsement including a written test to demonstrate knowledge of local law and proper operation of said bicycle. Why shouldn't we have license plates for our bikes? It would help to identify the rider and assist law enforcement. Wouldn't it be great if some of the collected money would be put into bicycle advocacy and trail development. While were at it I also feel that bicycles used for transportation on the street should at least carry some liability insurance. Face it, bicycles can do damage to personal property.

Everyone who commutes and rides wants to be treated as a vehicle while in traffic, well, you got to pay to play. Its funny how I notice that some riders want to be treated a vehicle in one situation then cry "I'm a pedestrian" next. Which is it, is it whatever is more convenient at the moment? Do you really think people are going to quit riding over a registration fee? How much does the average rider spend on bike gadgets in a year? It would only be a drop in the bucket.

The office coffee pot is broken. :mad:

Bau w/coffee nerves

Those roads are partially paid for by a gas tax because motor vehicles are so much more destructive to road surfaces than bicycles.

Motor vehicles are licensed because motor vehicles are dangerous, and so the state - for example, Pennsylvania - requires a license to operate one. Why do you think PA has a point system on driver's licenses? Why do you think you lose your privilege - not right or entitlement, but privilege - for too many points accumulated for unsafe driving, such as DUI, running red lights, speeding while not being Ed Rendell's driver? (Remember the flap when the Governor's car was clocked at 95 MPH on the PA Turnpike? Ed really needs to start cycling. But I digress....) Can you make a case that 250 pounds of bicycle and rider traveling 15 MPH are as dangerous as 2000 pounds of steel moving at 60 MPH?

Bicycle licensing is a bad idea not just because it's a tax grab and because it will deter cycling, but because it leads to arguments such as the one you present, arguments that equate the bicycle with a more dangerous and less moral form of transportation. It's like arguing that water pistols and hunting rifles should be licensed because they are both guns.

I already pay my taxes.

That's not what the IRS tells me!:p

Those roads are partially paid for by a gas tax because motor vehicles are so much more destructive to road surfaces than bicycles.

Very true, bicycles are not as destructive as motor vehicles to the surface of the road. But does the road still not require maintenance such as surface repairs and snow removal which benefit the bicycle rider on the motorists dime? True not all of all of PennDOT's funding comes from gas tax, but some still does and it is not possible to say it is fair as the driver still pays more. How do you feel about horse and buggy travel?

Why do you think PA has a point system on driver's licenses? Why do you think you lose your privilege - not right or entitlement, but privilege - for too many points accumulated for unsafe driving, such as DUI, running red lights, speeding while not being Ed Rendell's driver? (Remember the flap when the Governor's car was clocked at 95 MPH on the PA Turnpike? Ed really needs to start cycling. But I digress....)

Because it keeps idiots off the road. Interestingly enough there is no preventative measures to keep said idiots from biking to work potentially posing a hazard to themselves and those around them.

Can you make a case that 250 pounds of bicycle and rider traveling 15 MPH are as dangerous as 2000 pounds of steel moving at 60 MPH?

Force is equal to mass x acceleration, F=MxA

Bicycle: 113.3980925kg x 6.7056m/s2 = 760.402249068N

Car: 907.18474kg x 26.8224m/s2 = 24332.871970176N

Nope, nowhere close but we all knew that before I broke out the high school physics. But could we make a case that the bicycle moving at 15mph generating an impact of 760N or roughly 170.95 lbs per square inch has the potential to damage property and soft fleshy pedestrians? It sorta baffles me that liability insurance is not a requirement.

Bicycle licensing is a bad idea not just because it's a tax grab and because it will deter cycling, but because it leads to arguments such as the one you present, arguments that equate the bicycle with a more dangerous and less moral form of transportation. It's like arguing that water pistols and hunting rifles should be licensed because they are both guns.

My arguments are logical and sound. My math be a tad off on the other hand. Yes its a tax grab but it has the potential to lead to better facilities, training, and advocacy. Granted that may be a pipe dream here in Pee Aye. Hunting rifles are registered, their operators are licensed while hunting. Water pistols are toys. By your own argument you compare bicycles to merely toys while regarding motor vehicles as the real deal. A better comparison would be...say you pay your monthly dues to weight lift in a gym that has a row of treadmills. The owner of the gym allows anyone to use the treadmills for free provided they don't touch the weights. So basically they get to use the facility you pay for without taking on the responsibilities such as dues, equipment fees, and cleaning. Meh, maybe that comparison isn't so good.

I don't feel this is an argument I can possibly win due to bias but I do welcome anyone to make counterpoints.

Bau

That's not what the IRS tells me!:p

Gawdangit, they told me this tin foil hat would keep them from seeing me!

I already pay my taxes. If you start licensing bikes all you will accomplish is to decrease the amount of people riding bikes - period.

Hate to argue this point, but wouldn't decrease the number of cyclists, but create a new group of lawbreakers and generate revenue for both local and state governments. I don't know where you live, but here, and many small to medium towns and cities in the South, many low income working people (usually African-American or Latino) rely on bicycles to get around. Requiring a license to ride a bicycle would put an excessive burden on them, not to mention what it would do to an already overburdened and understaffed Department of Motor Vehicles and law enforcement.

http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/13847217.html
http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=billinfo&Service=Billbook&menu=false&hbill=SF2006

1) Bascally with the reccession coming they are looking for taxation schemes.

2) It might also be an attempt to control peoples movements. Here in NYC the police used sidewalk riding as an excuse to stop and run a check on arrest warrants. This was mostly done in 'minority' neighborhoods. I do not live in a minority neighborhood but when I did ride through one, got caught in fast moving traffic, and proceeded on an empty sidewalk boy was I in for a surprise. In NJ I believe it is illegal to ride a bicycle on the shoulder of a divided highway, although it is not enforced much, but it means that if you travel between communities in NJ you can be stopped by the police.

A whole lot of goofy legislation gets proposed around here. Howver, GENERALLY, wiser heads prevail and it gets tabled in a committee or somewhere.

Let's hope that happens with this bill, also.

I notice it excludes RAGBRAI. I would guess this is a big money maker for the state!

I already pay my taxes. If you start licensing bikes all you will accomplish is to decrease the amount of people riding bikes - period.

Riding a bike isn't operating a motor vehicle, heavy machinery, airplane or rocket...it's riding a bike, a very simple form of transportation that can be done by most anyone, at anytime, with minimal skill, preparation, fuss and cost. Let's keep it that way, m'kay?

Let's see, it depends on the cost of a license doesn't it? I mean $10 a year, heck you pay that for a soda at the movies these days..... People who stop riding over $10 a year, were just looking for an excuse, to stop anyway. Does raise a point though, if the State is simply looking for a tax grab, then it means they think the number of cyclists is large enough or will be increasing over the next little while that it's worth bothering with.

I've seen people on bikes with minimal skill, they ride too fast on the sidewalk ignoring stop signs and traffic signals, like the guy who nearly knocked the older lady and her walker into the ditch, when she got off the bus, last summer.

I really think if the state wants tax money, it's rather simple, require that cyclists carry government issued photo ID, then go after the ones who are riding in a dangerous or reckless manner. How about going after DRIVERS who are driving in a dangerous or reckless manner! Case in point, one street near here has about 6 schools on it, over a 5km distance, it has a 40km/h speed limit, most drivers don't drop below 60km/h on it, a pair of officers and a radar gun could make more cash in a day, then licensing the roughly 300,000 cyclists in the city would in a year.

How about passing a new law that bicycle lanes are to be considered tow-away zones. When cager parks his gas sucking, pollution spewing SUV in the bike lane, and comes back to find it gone, with a $100 ticket for blocking traffic, a $250 towing charge, a $150 storage fee, and the fact he now needs to go to the middle of nowhere to collect it, he's going to look for that bike lane, the next time. However, they should also use a unique stripe to identify such lanes. I'm thinking a double blue line, solid on the MV side, and dashed on the bicycle side, to indicate that cyclists can use the MV lane to pass a slower moving bicycle.

However this is government, give the government 65536 options, they will pick the one that raises the least money, costs the most, is overly complex, and irritates the tax payer the most, every time.

I don't think I would have a problem with shelling out a yearly license registration fee for the right to ride my bicycle on roads funded and maintained partially by gas tax. This of course is provided that it is an actual license endorsement including a written test to demonstrate knowledge of local law and proper operation of said bicycle. Why shouldn't we have license plates for our bikes? It would help to identify the rider and assist law enforcement. Wouldn't it be great if some of the collected money would be put into bicycle advocacy and trail development. While were at it I also feel that bicycles used for transportation on the street should at least carry some liability insurance. Face it, bicycles can do damage to personal property.

Everyone who commutes and rides wants to be treated as a vehicle while in traffic, well, you got to pay to play. Its funny how I notice that some riders want to be treated a vehicle in one situation then cry "I'm a pedestrian" next. Which is it, is it whatever is more convenient at the moment? Do you really think people are going to quit riding over a registration fee? How much does the average rider spend on bike gadgets in a year? It would only be a drop in the bucket.

The office coffee pot is broken. :mad:

Bau w/coffee nerves

I already have a license and it is a CDL with air brakes and passenger endorsement and that is expensive enough. The state allows someone with a class C license operate a moped here without a special license so why would a bike be any different.

The big problem with these types of taxes is that they will not go to pay for what they claim to. We pay 18 cents a gallon on gas tax. Most of the states portion of that goes to pay for other things besides new roads, bridges and the repairs of the old ones. The real reason they want this is because businesses and the rich do not want to pay their taxes. Instead of forcing me to pay their share they need man up and pay their own. Warren Buffet agrees.

The last thing a state should be doing is taxing people who are doing what is right. We are doing what we can to keep health care cost down, keeping businesses from losing money on missed work, helping to promote energy independence and with families riding together promoting healthy relationships both physically and mentally.

I read the proposal and the 90% of the money will go into the general road use, and not be used for bicycle specific fees. That right there should stop this stupid thing immediately. I also emailed the representative for my county and he is against it.

Let's see, it depends on the cost of a license doesn't it? I mean $10 a year, heck you pay that for a soda at the movies these days..... People who stop riding over $10 a year, were just looking for an excuse, to stop anyway. Does raise a point though, if the State is simply looking for a tax grab, then it means they think the number of cyclists is large enough or will be increasing over the next little while that it's worth bothering with.

If someone quits riding for 10 bucks a year, that's their problem. Personally, I just wouldn't pay it on principal and continue to ride. I have little tolerance for more useless taxes and fees on things that don't require such nonsense. I've yet to see what the 'problem' is that would be solved by licensing cyclists...whaddya wanna license next, pedestrians? Baby buggies? Foot scooters?

The fee...which is all it is, is a barrier to entry...free people shouldn't have to pay money and go through a bunch of red tape to take advantage of the simple, basic transportation opportunities provided by a bicycle.

Very true, bicycles are not as destructive as motor vehicles to the surface of the road. But does the road still not require maintenance such as surface repairs and snow removal which benefit the bicycle rider on the motorists dime? True not all of all of PennDOT's funding comes from gas tax, but some still does and it is not possible to say it is fair as the driver still pays more. How do you feel about horse and buggy travel?


I'm not sure why you brought the Amish into this, but snow removal benefits the community, not just cyclists. That includes pedestrians and, yes, horse-powered travel. And it benefits the postal service, the military, civil defense, firemen..... phrasing your argument as bikes vs cars misses the point: the roads are for everyone, but motorists cause the most damage.


Because it keeps idiots off the road. Interestingly enough there is no preventative measures to keep said idiots from biking to work potentially posing a hazard to themselves and those around them.


How much greater a hazard are these "idiots" before they are removed from their 2000 pound battering ram?


Force is equal to mass x acceleration, F=MxA

Bicycle: 113.3980925kg x 6.7056m/s2 = 760.402249068N

Car: 907.18474kg x 26.8224m/s2 = 24332.871970176N

Nope, nowhere close but we all knew that before I broke out the high school physics. But could we make a case that the bicycle moving at 15mph generating an impact of 760N or roughly 170.95 lbs per square inch has the potential to damage property and soft fleshy pedestrians? It sorta baffles me that liability insurance is not a requirement.


Again, it's not that a bike cannot cause harm, it's how much greater harm can be caused by a car. You keep missing my point.


My arguments are logical and sound. My math be a tad off on the other hand. Yes its a tax grab but it has the potential to lead to better facilities, training, and advocacy. Granted that may be a pipe dream here in Pee Aye. Hunting rifles are registered, their operators are licensed while hunting. Water pistols are toys. By your own argument you compare bicycles to merely toys while regarding motor vehicles as the real deal. A better comparison would be...say you pay your monthly dues to weight lift in a gym that has a row of treadmills. The owner of the gym allows anyone to use the treadmills for free provided they don't touch the weights. So basically they get to use the facility you pay for without taking on the responsibilities such as dues, equipment fees, and cleaning. Meh, maybe that comparison isn't so good.

I don't feel this is an argument I can possibly win due to bias but I do welcome anyone to make counterpoints.

Bau

Actually, my point was that both water pistols and hunting rifles are guns, which is technically correct. The bikes as toys slant is something you read into it.

I think the Amish was brought into it, because I was wondering if they were taxed to take their transportation on the public roads. I honestly do not know. As far as tractors, I know there are other taxes that are paid, but I do not think they pay a road tax, other than the tax on gas and diesel fuel. Tractors, Wagons and other overloaded farming equipment do a lot more damage than a bicycle will. Plus the bicycle will not drag mud and corn and beans into the highway and spill the contents in the road.

I ride motorcycles a lot also, and riding on the mud left behind, or a small spill of corn and/or beans is not fun at 55 mph on two wheels.

I think the Amish was brought into it, because I was wondering if they were taxed to take their transportation on the public roads. I honestly do not know. As far as tractors, I know there are other taxes that are paid, but I do not think they pay a road tax, other than the tax on gas and diesel fuel. Tractors, Wagons and other overloaded farming equipment do a lot more damage than a bicycle will. Plus the bicycle will not drag mud and corn and beans into the highway and spill the contents in the road.

Some places do require licenses for horse drawn buggies. Interestingly, while doing some digging about this I found several comments from people about buggies not belonging on the road because their owners don't pay highway taxes. Sound familiar?