Advocacy & Safety - Bicycle License Plates

Somebody wrote this , and it appeared in the Chicago Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-080717bikes_briefs,0,1201878.story

Quote:

"Bicycle plates could be new revenue stream
1:29 PM CDT, July 17, 2008
As bicycles become utility vehicles rather than recreational - as in the past - I think it is time they become licensed replete with small plates on their rear fenders or seats. Even a short test could be given to ensure rules of the road are understood. Much of riders' bravado stems from their lack of identity. With a number on the rear of their bikes, they can easily be identified. A small sum of five dollars per bike would be reasonable. Registration could be done at their local aldermanic offices where in fact, voter registration can be done too.

It could be a new revenue stream helping to fund our Olympic goals. Bike riding is a sport too. Yet with so many riders skimming pass pedestrians and through intersections daily, this method of identification will allow them the same status and limitations of motor vehicles. It will cut pedestrians some slack in walking and crossing thoroughfares safely too.

--Vincent Kamin

Chicago"

Moved to A&S

When i live in Hawaii in Honolulu we had the have a bike registration.

I walked out of a store and someone had put another lock on my bike. I called 911 police showed up machted MY ID with my bike reg and cut the lock.

So i am kinda for this. Its not all bad.

When i live in Hawaii in Honolulu we had the have a bike registration.

I walked out of a store and someone had put another lock on my bike. I called 911 police showed up machted MY ID with my bike reg and cut the lock.

So i am kinda for this. Its not all bad.

Just curious, why would someone put another lock on your bike?

One thing I do like about the idea of license plates for bikes is that it removes the complete lack of accountability that cyclists now have. So if someone does something really stupid, like ride the wrong way down the street (which happens somewhat frequently) they are not totally anonymous.

That said, I really don't think license plates would change the behavior of cyclists (assuming cyclists behavior needs changing). Motorists commit minor infractions all the time... Why would anyone expect cyclists to be different? And police can't be everywhere. People's habits would remain the same.

And what would stop someone from just riding without a plate? Does anyone think that police would really be interested in chasing plateless bikes?

The biggest problem is it tends to be a city wide program, unlike auto tags which are statewide.

if they are doing it to make revenue, it will fail miserably. Every study I've seen has shown the administration of the program will cost much more than any "reasonable" fee imposed.

If they think it will magically make every cyclist in the city start obeying the law, they are fooling themselves there too. Just look at the auto drivers. They are required to get plates, yet actual 100% adherence to the law never happens.

If they are proposing it just to stick it to the cyclists, then mission accomplished. If a cop pulls you over on a bike, you still have to produce id if asked. If you don't have it and lie, you will go to jail.

I think this dovetails nicely with the scofflaw cyclist thread from earlier.
It's such a Nanny/Police state mentality that is expressed by most folks who are in favor of such programs. I have nothing against licensing bikes and cyclists, but the proponents of such measures always talk about "reporting" errant cyclists. Do these same drivers "report" on every motorist they see changing lanes without signaling or speeding ten over the limit? I would seriously doubt it. In the manner that the issue is expressed in this instance it seems nothing more than a motorist trying to keep cyclists in their place.

Just curious, why would someone put another lock on your bike?

It's a way of stealing bikes. Lock it, the owner has no choice but to leave it, the thief can then return later when no one is around (at night, when businesses close, etc.).

35 years ago, we had to have little adhesive stickers -- bicycle licenses -- on our bikes in Ft. Wayne. The Fire Dept. would give the bike a safety inspection, collect the $1 fee, and give you the sticker. You applied it while they watched.

I thought it was an inconvenience, but back then, there was no question of civil disobedience; any action the authorities took were insignificant compared to parental action!! So it was just 'to be done'.

Of course, back then, road rage was all but unknown; drivers DID share the road. I rode in the street daily, and almost never had an issue (one driver in about three years). It didn't seem an issue then.

Now, it's doubtful it would do anything but exacerbate the problems we're facing; bike licensing would be a money-loser, ineffective, and useless in the face of raging cagers.

Mackinac Island (Michigan) has the option to register bikes with an Island "plate" which is actually a sticker. The police will have the license number and the serial number of the bike on file. It only costs like $5 for the year so it is not bad. The bad part is that if you don't purchase a license and your bike is stolen the police will not look for it.

Just curious, why would someone put another lock on your bike?

It is also a technique used by shopping mall security guards and school administrators to enforce their bicycle parking preferences.

If people cannot write well, they cannot think well, and if they cannot think well, others will do their thinking for them
-George Orwell

Well, with that said, I, with some embarrassment, must admit that I couldn't have said the following better myself:


I think this dovetails nicely with the scofflaw cyclist thread from earlier.
It's such a Nanny/Police state mentality that is expressed by most folks who are in favor of such programs. I have nothing against licensing bikes and cyclists, but the proponents of such measures always talk about "reporting" errant cyclists. Do these same drivers "report" on every motorist they see changing lanes without signaling or speeding ten over the limit? I would seriously doubt it. In the manner that the issue is expressed in this instance it seems nothing more than a motorist trying to keep cyclists in their place.

+1

Mackinac Island (Michigan) has the option to register bikes with an Island "plate" which is actually a sticker. The police will have the license number and the serial number of the bike on file. It only costs like $5 for the year so it is not bad. The bad part is that if you don't purchase a license and your bike is stolen the police will not look for it.

any indication that they actually look for bikes WITH the sticker?

Most police dept's barely respond to vehicle thefts.

Lansing, Michigan's police SURE don't respond to bike thefts.

I can see this being marginally usefull from a bicyclist perspective.

In japan the situation is pretty good. I believe you have to have a bike registered when you buy it, but bike theft is treated very similarly to car theft. Of course, crime in general in japan is super low, and most peoples idea of "locking" their bike is a little locking ring next to the rear brake.

The proposed "save the bicyclists from themselves" thing is ********. Licenses wouldnt get anyone to change their biking behavior...

...but the proponents of such measures always talk about "reporting" errant cyclists. Do these same drivers "report" on every motorist they see changing lanes without signaling or speeding ten over the limit? I would seriously doubt it. In the manner that the issue is expressed in this instance it seems nothing more than a motorist trying to keep cyclists in their place.

Or when the issue is proposed/advocated on BF- nothing more than Super Nanny/Smugster Bicyclists trying to keep the Other Cyclists (AKA cyclists with a different profile than their own) in their place.

If anyone is naive enough to believe our legislators will focus the monies raised from bicycle licensing towards anything related to the bicycling sport should look at NY's LOTTO. Enabling politicians with more money is the same as enabling an alcoholic with another drink. Neither works well.

Mackinac Island (Michigan) has the option to register bikes with an Island "plate" which is actually a sticker. The police will have the license number and the serial number of the bike on file. It only costs like $5 for the year so it is not bad. The bad part is that if you don't purchase a license and your bike is stolen the police will not look for it.

While I am against the idea of bike license plates, I do like this idea; sort of a low-tech LowJack approach. I just don't want Big Brother telling me I have to get a permit simply because I choose a different lifestyle (in this case, mode of transportation).

To paraphrase New Hampshire's state motto, "Ride free or die"!

You license a privilidge, like driving a motor vehicle. You do not license a right, like using a human powered vehicle.

You license a privilidge, like driving a motor vehicle. You do not license a right, like using a human powered vehicle.

Amen, brother.

putting a license plate on a bike....

you guys are actually cyclists, and you think this is a good idea?

let me guess, you don't like to ride very fast, do you?

If it is to our advantage to take another bullet out of the anti-cyclists guns then is it ultimately to our advantage to license the bike just like any other vehicle on the road?

putting a license plate on a bike....

you guys are actually cyclists, and you think this is a good idea?

let me guess, you don't like to ride very fast, do you?

I would support it, but only under the following conditions:

it would be voluntary, not required;
the "license" would be used to help track down/verify stolen bicycles;
that any profit (which, most likely, there will not be any) go back to improve bicycling infrastructure (signage, bike lanes, bike boxes, etc.


Otherwise, hell no.

If it is to our advantage to take another bullet out of the anti-cyclists guns then is it ultimately to our advantage to license the bike just like any other vehicle on the road?

do you honestly think that will happen? I just see a slippery slope and no matter what cyclists do (outside of getting off the road altogether), nothing will appease the angry motorist.

Once we get licensed, they will demand that we buy mandatory insurance.
Then they will demand that we get our bikes inspected once a year (if cars have to do it, why not bikes?).
Then they will demand some kind of special tax on the bikes because we "don't pay gas taxes, yet still use the roads!".

It will never end. Appeasement is not the answer.

bad idea

I don't see this happening anywhere anytime soon. This is simply a letter in the "voice of the people" section of the newspaper and not a report on what legislators are thinking. Vincent Kamin is simply voicing his (somewhat lame) opinion. Don't pay it too much attention.

Politicians NEVER use money for the purposes they use to convince you to part with it.

Somebody wrote this , and it appeared in the Chicago Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-080717bikes_briefs,0,1201878.story

Quote:

"Bicycle plates could be new revenue stream
1:29 PM CDT, July 17, 2008
As bicycles become utility vehicles rather than recreational - as in the past - I think it is time they become licensed replete with small plates on their rear fenders or seats. Even a short test could be given to ensure rules of the road are understood. Much of riders' bravado stems from their lack of identity. With a number on the rear of their bikes, they can easily be identified. A small sum of five dollars per bike would be reasonable. Registration could be done at their local aldermanic offices where in fact, voter registration can be done too.


--Vincent Kamin

Chicago"

I completely, utterly, totally disagree. I just spent over four hours having my three vehicles tested for their annual Georgia emissions stickers just so I can have the privilege of going down to the Department of Motor Vehicles (Registration could be done at their local aldermanic offices) and stand in line for another hour or two so that I can shell out another $459 for license plates for 2008. Less than five years ago, the emissions test was $10, now it's $25. The license fee has doubled in that same time.

The last thing we need is more government bureaucracy, paperwork, fees, and taxes. Get your hand out of my pocket, get your regulation off my back, and don't be hanging any crap on my bike.

do you honestly think that will happen? I just see a slippery slope and no matter what cyclists do (outside of getting off the road altogether), nothing will appease the angry motorist.

Once we get licensed, they will demand that we buy mandatory insurance.
Then they will demand that we get our bikes inspected once a year (if cars have to do it, why not bikes?).
Then they will demand some kind of special tax on the bikes because we "don't pay gas taxes, yet still use the roads!".

It will never end. Appeasement is not the answer.

The devil's advocate in me says why not. If we truly want to "share the road" then there may be a responsibility to share the load. Mandatory insurance is proof that you and not the rest of society can foot the medical bills when you have an accident. An annual inspection is proof that you are not about to hurt yourself and cost society money for the response. Gas taxes are actually (if you believe government) a tax for building and maintaining the road for which you recieve an equal benefit to ride on that road. They were imposed as "gas taxes" at a time that it was reasonable to assume that for all practical purposes, fuel burning vehicles were 99.9% of what was on the road and they are easy to collect when formatted in that manner. They cover much more than road maintenance caused by weight or size. Are we really asking to share the road, or do we want free and unrestricted access without the assosciated price.

This is the response that the driving public will have. These are the things that we must be prepared to respond to in a reasonable manner. Failure to do so will result in new laws and votes against cycling by the much larger population of drivers. Share the road is a two way street.

hmm

license bicycles? wtf? First chicago doesnt want anyone to own guns, now they want cyclists to be registered too...WHAT does chicago have planned? next your gonna need to stick a license plate to your back to walk to the store :notamused:

Funny how many sheeple will just fall into the government's desire to have a complete police state. Thinking "oh its gonna help us" NOT!

think of it this way: forget to hand signal when you turn on your bike, and somone (cop?) sees it they take down your bicycle license plate and you end up getting a ticket in the mail, and if you have a drivers license, possible points on your license? Now THERE is a smart concept to support!

The devil's advocate in me says why not. If we truly want to "share the road" then there may be a responsibility to share the load. Mandatory insurance is proof that you and not the rest of society can foot the medical bills when you have an accident. An annual inspection is proof that you are not about to hurt yourself and cost society money for the response. Gas taxes are actually (if you believe government) a tax for building and maintaining the road for which you recieve an equal benefit to ride on that road. They were imposed as "gas taxes" at a time that it was reasonable to assume that for all practical purposes, fuel burning vehicles were 99.9% of what was on the road and they are easy to collect when formatted in that manner. They cover much more than road maintenance caused by weight or size. Are we really asking to share the road, or do we want free and unrestricted access without the assosciated price.

This is the response that the driving public will have. These are the things that we must be prepared to respond to in a reasonable manner. Failure to do so will result in new laws and votes against cycling by the much larger population of drivers. Share the road is a two way street.

All of that is well and good but you have to ask yourself, are you trying to promote cycling or keep people in their cars?

If you impose every regulation, tax, and hassle on a bicycle that you do a car, you just remove one major advantage to owning and using a bike, freedom from government intrusion, and extra savings from avoiding unnecessary taxes.

Frankly I don't see the financial need for any of that. Cyclists don't cause near the amount of damage that cars do, and usually any damage could usually be paid out of pocket. On the gas tax thing, there's the whole argument on the impact a bike vs. a car has on a road. If you charge on that basis, any tax imposed would be meaningless to any actual upkeep of said roads.

But at this point we are starting to go round and round. You obviously don't have a problem with a LOT of government oversight with cycling. I would like to keep govn't meddling to as little as possible.

Only if they used 100% of the funds for building Bicycle Infastructure.

I little trip through the Way Back machine takes me to a time when the sticker and bike registration cost $.25 and they did it at any fire station.

any indication that they actually look for bikes WITH the sticker?

Most police dept's barely respond to vehicle thefts.

There are only about 500 residents on the island that live there year round and cars are banned. The island is only 8 miles around and the only form of transportation is horse, bike or foot.

Having your bike stolen there would be like having your car stolen in a town of 500 people and the theif only being able to go 8 miles in a circle. The cops are pretty quick to respond to anything but not a lot happens. Mostly drunk riding, drunks peeing in the park and an occasional bar fight between tourists.

Once we get licensed, they will demand that we buy mandatory insurance.
Then they will demand that we get our bikes inspected once a year (if cars have to do it, why not bikes?).
Then they will demand some kind of special tax on the bikes because we "don't pay gas taxes, yet still use the roads!".

It will never end. Appeasement is not the answer.

+1000

do you honestly think that will happen? I just see a slippery slope and no matter what cyclists do (outside of getting off the road altogether), nothing will appease the angry motorist.

Once we get licensed, they will demand that we buy mandatory insurance.
Then they will demand that we get our bikes inspected once a year (if cars have to do it, why not bikes?).
Then they will demand some kind of special tax on the bikes because we "don't pay gas taxes, yet still use the roads!".

It will never end. Appeasement is not the answer.

The above is absolutely right.

hmm

WHAT does chicago have planned? next your gonna need to stick a license plate to your back to walk to the store :notamused:
!

Don't laugh at this thought. My mother bikes alot. 5 mph on a three speed. That is as fast as she gets. I run, not alot once twice a week, on the road, faster than she bikes.
If you license a 5 mph bike, why not license a 7 mph runner?

hmm

license bicycles? wtf? First chicago doesnt want anyone to own guns, now they want cyclists to be registered too..

!

Both these ideas come down to control. You (the people) must be under control and given permission to do what you choose.

I think this dovetails nicely with the scofflaw cyclist thread from earlier.
It's such a Nanny/Police state mentality that is expressed by most folks who are in favor of such programs. I have nothing against licensing bikes and cyclists, but the proponents of such measures always talk about "reporting" errant cyclists. Do these same drivers "report" on every motorist they see changing lanes without signaling or speeding ten over the limit? I would seriously doubt it. In the manner that the issue is expressed in this instance it seems nothing more than a motorist trying to keep cyclists in their place.

I agree with you 100%, which is why I am more than willing to go along with such a program just to show how utterly useless it is. Not to mention the fact that it will not generate revenue at all as someone else pointed out.

But simply to "gain face" before motorists, hey if this is what it takes... so be it. Motorists then have no course for complaints at that point... they must shut up or put up. ;)

do you honestly think that will happen? I just see a slippery slope and no matter what cyclists do (outside of getting off the road altogether), nothing will appease the angry motorist.

Once we get licensed, they will demand that we buy mandatory insurance.
Then they will demand that we get our bikes inspected once a year (if cars have to do it, why not bikes?).
Then they will demand some kind of special tax on the bikes because we "don't pay gas taxes, yet still use the roads!".

It will never end. Appeasement is not the answer.

Frankly I think it will stop with the license tag... as the administrative costs will be too high to make it practical...

But hey I am willing to pay the stupid fees just so I can flash said tag at the next driver that yells "get on the sidewalk."

Of course to be perfectly fair RE the road use tax issue, they should tax all road users by weight... Heck I'd willingly pay a dollar a pound. :D

Wouldn't that be wonderful for those of us who have multiple bikes...all with no fenders. We go through that every few years with registering human powered boats, especially kayaks and canoes, here. Keep alert, stuff like this has a way of sneaking up on you and becoming law. Next will be a license to bicycle that you have to carry on your person and produce to law enforcement if you violate the law or the cop's sensibilities.

Only if they used 100% of the funds for building Bicycle Infastructure.

I little trip through the Way Back machine takes me to a time when the sticker and bike registration cost $.25 and they did it at any fire station.

I think I paid $2.00 for one once. But I'd be willing to go a dollar a pound if motorists also had the same fees... :D

Don't laugh at this thought. My mother bikes alot. 5 mph on a three speed. That is as fast as she gets. I run, not alot once twice a week, on the road, faster than she bikes.
If you license a 5 mph bike, why not license a 7 mph runner?

Well, you do have to carry ID, right? :rolleyes:

Frankly I think it will stop with the license tag... as the administrative costs will be too high to make it practical...

But hey I am willing to pay the stupid fees just so I can flash said tag at the next driver that yells "get on the sidewalk."

:D

so you are happy to pay for something that should be common knowledge? I have just the thing for you:

http://www.red2black.org.uk/videos.php?id=3

Why not just buy a t-shirt or placard that says "I have a right to be on the road". Probably would be as effective as a sticker (which I doubt most motorists would see anyways).

so you are happy to pay for something that should be common knowledge? I have just the thing for you:

http://www.red2black.org.uk/videos.php?id=3

Why not just buy a t-shirt or placard that says "I have a right to be on the road". Probably would be as effective as a sticker (which I doubt most motorists wouldn't see anyways).

It should be common knowledge... but it isn't. In fact that would be one thing I would love to see paid for by such a license... some PSAs to inform the public that I have a right to be there.

Heck I put money out every year to pay for a membership in my local advocacy group... so indeed I believe in paying to make this information common knowledge.

I also pass out fliers to local bike shops that outline the laws pertaining to cyclists... so again I am putting out effort.

Sure I think licensing cyclists is stupid, but I am willing to do it just to prove that point to the pointless boneheaded "I own the road" motorists.

All of that is well and good but you have to ask yourself, are you trying to promote cycling or keep people in their cars?

If you impose every regulation, tax, and hassle on a bicycle that you do a car, you just remove one major advantage to owning and using a bike, freedom from government intrusion, and extra savings from avoiding unnecessary taxes.

Frankly I don't see the financial need for any of that. Cyclists don't cause near the amount of damage that cars do, and usually any damage could usually be paid out of pocket. On the gas tax thing, there's the whole argument on the impact a bike vs. a car has on a road. If you charge on that basis, any tax imposed would be meaningless to any actual upkeep of said roads.

But at this point we are starting to go round and round. You obviously don't have a problem with a LOT of government oversight with cycling. I would like to keep govn't meddling to as little as possible.

I am trying to promote cycling.

Do you think it is cyclists rights to use the infrastructure of our society without paying their fair share?

I do agree that the fair share for a bicycle is much less than an automobile. Folks here have mentioned $2 dollar license tags in some locations.

The point is, to defuse the more or less pointless arguments that the motoring public has about cycling we might have to be willing to give in to a license. We might even have to obey traffic laws. There are far more of them than there are of us and I don't want to see any more silly anti cycling laws passed because we are perceived as the "bad guys".

Government oversight is a fact of life. You like it when your cell phone frequency is kept clear of garage door openers, or when your name can go on a do not call list or when the meat you eat is more or less controlled and safe. There are few other successful ways to organize 300 million or so people into traveling in the same direction and on the same side of the road. Anarchy doesn't work.

Do you think it is cyclists rights to use the infrastructure of our society without paying their fair share?

I do agree that the fair share for a bicycle is much less than an automobile. Folks here have mentioned $2 dollar license tags in some locations.


We do pay are fair share; it's called taxes. And before you go off on the whole gas tax argument, that only applies to federally funded highways, most of which bicycles are prohibited from riding on in the first place (is anyone here insane enough to bicycle on I-5?). If you pay income tax (both federal and, in most cases, state), you already pay for the "right" to use the roads. A driver's license gives you the privilege of driving, not a right (driver's licenses can be and are suspended and/or revoked). Riding a bicycle, like walking, is a right that cannot be revoked or suspended.

We do pay are fair share; it's called taxes. And before you go off on the whole gas tax argument, that only applies to federally funded highways, most of which bicycles are prohibited from riding on in the first place (is anyone here insane enough to bicycle on I-5?). If you pay income tax (both federal and, in most cases, state), you already pay for the "right" to use the roads. A driver's license gives you the privilege of driving, not a right (driver's licenses can be and are suspended and/or revoked). Riding a bicycle, like walking, is a right that cannot be revoked or suspended.

I'm afraid it can. There are counties out in the midwest now that are passing laws that severely limit the rights of cyclists.

http://www.velonews.com/article/79749

Are they stupid laws.........they sure are. Can they be repealled............maybe but its going to cost somebody money and time. These laws are passed by people who don't like cyclists. We need to make those people stop not liking us.

I pay my fair share, quite a bit in fact. Alot of property taxes, and alot of vehicle taxes.^^^^^

Where do you draw the line, how much is a reasonable fee, and who gets to set said fee?

Imagine the fee, suddenly inflated by admin costs, instead of it being $5 it being $50 a year, per bike. Maybe more... Imagine the person working out reasonable fees is only working from the admin costs and physical plate costs, and how much cash should go to the state.


The cost of actually telling everyone that owns a bike that they need a plate would far outstrip the revenue gained, and the enforcment costs, time and energy needed to enforce it would be huge. Any kid who can save up $50 can get a bike these days, second hand ones go for much less than that.

**not that this'd effect me, given I'm not in the states**