Living Car Free - Would You Support Bicycle Registration?

Given the fact that....
using a bicycle as "practical transportation" means needing to be able to leave it lock up wherever you go, and be reasonably sure it won't get stolen,

and,

being that in most locales, bicycles require no registration at all (and this means that someone can steal your bike, spray-paint the frame and begin using it immediately, fairly secure in the knowledge that no police will ever look at the serial number)....

would you support mandatory registration/license plates for bicycles?
-Presuming that there was no legal requirements as such, other taking it to the police dept (where they would record the serial #) and claiming ownership.
-And assuming that the plates would be done like car plates are--mailed to your home address, so there is some record of location.

Obviously a lot of bikes get stolen just for parts, but then, it would be possible to do like what they do for car windows--etch the frame's serial number into all the major pieces (rims, stem, cranks, front & rear der's).

------

I see all this advice about "how to properly lock a bike" and "where is safe to lock a bike" and yet the main problem is that in most places, riding a stolen bike is a very low-risk proposition. If a thief manages to steal a bike successfully, from then on there's almost no chances of them getting caught. The main way to lower bike theft would be to make stolen bikes essentially unusable, and I can't help but think that registration (& license plates) is the best way to do that.

The effort has to be universally enforced however--if people are allowed to "opt out" of registration, then police have no motive to stop and check people riding bikes with no plates.

......Just wondering what people (who depend on their bikes) think....
~

No, needing some form of registration to ride a bike makes this form of transit not anonymous. I am a fan of as little registration and red tape as possible. There is no way registration will help except for maybe returning stolen bikes, but I don't have the expectation any one else is looking out for my bike's security but me.

I voted no. Cycle-friendly cities have already shown that registration isn't necessary (or effective?) as a deterrent. The most effective means of reducing the individual risk of bike theft, I think, is to surround the bicycle with lots of other bicycles; ie, safety in numbers.

When you've got tens of thousands of bikes being ridden daily in a city environment, your bike is less likely to be stolen, and everyone is more likely to stop that guy digging into a bike rack with a hacksaw, as there's a greater communal bond between the cyclists. To me, almost every issue related to cycling comes back to the need for more cyclists.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3265/2710510214_a5a9817ca1.jpg?v=0

I voted no. Cycle-friendly cities have already shown that registration isn't necessary (or effective?) as a deterrent. The most effective means of reducing the individual risk of bike theft, I think, is to surround the bicycle with lots of other bicycles; ie, safety in numbers.
I seem to recall that Denmark had a pretty staggering amount of bike theft.


When you've got tens of thousands of bikes being ridden daily in a city environment, your bike is less likely to be stolen, and everyone is more likely to stop that guy digging into a bike rack with a hacksaw, as there's a greater communal bond between the cyclists. To me, almost every issue related to cycling comes back to the need for more cyclists.
So, suppose your city got rid of registration/licensing requirements for cars... Do you think that car theft rates would go way higher, go lower, or stay the same?.....
~

I seem to recall that Denmark had a pretty staggering amount of bike theft.

They also have a staggering amount of bikes. But I'd rather take my chances with a bicycle somewhere where there are also lots of other bicycles than park mine in a comparatively empty rack...which is what I'll probably have to do when cycling to night classes. If a thief visits the rack at night and sees one bicycle, that bike is 10x more likely to get stolen than if he visits and sees ten, presuming each bike is relatively similar in perceived value.



So, suppose your city got rid of registration/licensing requirements for cars... Do you think that car theft rates would go way higher, go lower, or stay the same?.....
~I don't know if it's possible to make a direct comparison from bicycles to cars. It's sort of like comparing car registration to aircraft registration. There's much more at stake, societally-speaking, if the latter goes missing than if the former does. To be frank, if I were a police officer, I'd pay much less attention to bikes than to cars because bikes are essentially disposable items in the public eye. In most cities, fewer than 1% of people commute on them. It wouldn't make sense to spend more than a few minutes per day doing bike-related paperwork. That's why I think the only way to fix this would be to have so many bikes around that they became taken seriously as means of transportation, which would make them taken seriously when they went missing. Otherwise, the average PD would pay about as much attention to stolen bikes as they do to stolen Segways.

I voted no. Cycle-friendly cities have already shown that registration isn't necessary (or effective?) as a deterrent. The most effective means of reducing the individual risk of bike theft, I think, is to surround the bicycle with lots of other bicycles; ie, safety in numbers.

When you've got tens of thousands of bikes being ridden daily in a city environment, your bike is less likely to be stolen, and everyone is more likely to stop that guy digging into a bike rack with a hacksaw, as there's a greater communal bond between the cyclists. To me, almost every issue related to cycling comes back to the need for more cyclists.


I heard on globetreker that there are more bike thefts in Amsterdam every year than there are bikes. IOW, many bikes are stolen more than once a year. I believe the bikes are registered there, too. The city next door to me (East Lansing, MI) has mandatory registration. They also have a lot of bike thefts.

As a teen in the early nineties my bike was stolen. My small town required registering bikes, but few people did. I registered my new Mt Bike (saved all summer to buy it..!) and three months after it was stolen it was returned by the local police.
I don't think it should be required, but I would register anyway if it was optional.

Call me a cynic, but I really think that a bike registration program would be another opportunity for taxes to be levied. I don't think that it would reduce theft either, given the portability and ease of which one can be stripped.

Another problem with voluntary registration of bikes and counter-theft: Because not all bikes would have a license plate, police and officials would not be obligated to stay vigilant for them. Unlike cars, where if a vehicle doesn't have a plate or a temporary paper license, it will positively be pulled over by police. By this very simple flaw the whole plan unravels.

Simply put registration for bikes doesn't carry over as a scheme like it does for cars, like uke says. At this point in society the benefits of not having a mandatory registration (privacy, no need to make your bike "officially" bound to anything, no hassles, no legality issues, no potential to create a "biker's licence" with a test) far outweigh the negatives of not having one (potentially helpful in retrieving stolen bikes). It has to be an all-or-nothing approach, and as a voluntary system it will not work. Thief takes bikes, thief ditches license plate, cops never notice because it's a voluntary opt-in system, bike blends in with thousands of other non-registered bikes. Back to square one. If you try to make the license plate "unremovable," something like a RFID tag, you will have an angry sea of privacy concerns.

Right now bikes are not a serious part of infrastructure to have a system like cars do. It is an every man for himself game -- secure your stuff or be violated. It's an (almost) fair game to those who know how to be street smart and play it.

I heard on globetreker that there are more bike thefts in Amsterdam every year than there are bikes. IOW, many bikes are stolen more than once a year. I believe the bikes are registered there, too. The city next door to me (East Lansing, MI) has mandatory registration. They also have a lot of bike thefts.

Yup. I don't think registration would have as much of an effect as people think it would. Another factor that differentiates car registration from bicycle registration is the frequency at which car registration is cross-checked with databases compared with the rate bicycles would be. You need a license plate or registration for pretty much any kind of car service. Driving without a license gets you stopped. Unless police were willing to give out tickets each time they found a cyclist without plates, no one would bother with registration. That doesn't even get into the fact that bikes, being disposable, are less likely to be taken in for repair than cars. In other words, a stolen bike with fake plates would be just as immune to recovery as a stolen bike would be without mandatory registration policies. It just doesn't seem like a practical, effective, or enforceable plan.

Edit: also, everything peabodypride and 77midget said above!

...Driving without a license gets you stopped. Unless police were willing to give out tickets each time they found a cyclist without plates, no one would bother with registration. ...
Well yea, that's the whole point.

If you stole a car, why do you think police would pull you over?
Because the car either had license plates listed as stolen, or because you took the license plates off....

So police would have to ticket people who rode without plates.
And I'm guessing that police would have to confiscate bikes that had no plates, until a registration was paid.

Also (perhaps) the bicycle's serial number could be printed right on the license plate, to make spot-checks easier on police.... They could easily go along a rack of bikes in public, verifying the right plates were affixed.
~

My bike is registered. It's a sticker rather than a plate though. Bike registration is already mandatory here. Non registered bikes are subjected to a $50 fine. I don't know how vigorously it's enforced though.

Mostly it helps get your bike returned if it is stolen. My city has around $300,000 worth of bikes stolen each year.

My bike is registered. It's a sticker rather than a plate though. Bike registration is already mandatory here. Non registered bikes are subjected to a $50 fine. I don't know how vigorously it's enforced though.

Mostly it helps get your bike returned if it is stolen. My city has around $300,000 worth of bikes stolen each year.

Sounds like the registration isn't helping much.

One of my bikes is registered and the registration sticker numbers have rubbed off, though they can supposedly track it by your serial number. It was quite an ordeal to get it registered 3 trips to the fire station though it was only a dollar. Technically in Houston you are required but no one does it, I mean no one the only sticker I have ever seen is my own bikes. I talked to my lbs about it he said in over 20 years in the biz he has known one person to get a bike back due it being registered. The laws regarding registration are kind of funny and was really the only reason I did it. The registration paperwork is kind of similar to a car title if you sell it than you must sign it over to the buyer then turn it in to the police station. In the picture was a bike I previously owned that has the registration sticker on the seat tube I highly doubt a police officer driving by could see it.

Edit here is the link to our laws http://www.bikehouston.org/content/view/19/65/

Where I grew up, we had a bicycle license system. It was $1 for a license plate for the year. The $1 fee isn't going to break anyone, but I'd prefer a sticker instead of a plate.

The advantage of a license system is that the bike is now registered and if stolen, it may help slightly in getting it back.

Licensing for bicycles does not address the much bigger problem of unsafe or unskilled riders creating a hazard on the roads and sidewalks. Far too many cyclists (although a minority overall) don't seem to understand the basic traffic rules governing them. If there is some way to incorporate bike registration with cyclist safety education, I'd be quite interested.

Based solely on your reasoning for registration... a resounding no.

Now, if it was mandatory that an insurance company had to sell me bike insurance (with coveraged like any other vehicle) if I registered it..... YES, in a heart beat.

If the police would be as aggressive ticketing bikes that break the law like they do cars.... absolutely yes. And yes, it would then appear more likely that they would also catch more bike thiefs/receivers of stolen property.

Sounds like the registration isn't helping much.

It depends on what you expect registration to do. If you expect it to prevent theft, it doesn't much. And it does virtually nothing to help catch the thief.

It's good for getting your bike back if it's found. If it's not registered you won't be getting it back. It gets auctioned. For $2.50 per year, I at least get a chance of having my bike returned.

The hot bed of bike theft is near the University where there are lots of bikes left outside. They are increasing security and using bait bikes to deter and catch thieves in that area.

Many years ago the town I lived in offered bicycle registration. I had several bikes stolen, none of the registered ones were ever recovered. I inquired recently about what had happened to the database from that particular registration drive and no one could tell me. They don't even know if it still exists. Another problem with registration would be the transfer of ownership, I suspect it would not be particularly cost effective. Also what do you do when you own multiple bikes? I currently have over a dozen some get ridden with more frequency than others.

I vote don't bother me with registration.

Aaron:)

Many years ago the town I lived in offered bicycle registration. I had several bikes stolen, none of the registered ones were ever recovered. I inquired recently about what had happened to the database from that particular registration drive and no one could tell me. They don't even know if it still exists. Another problem with registration would be the transfer of ownership, I suspect it would not be particularly cost effective. Also what do you do when you own multiple bikes? I currently have over a dozen some get ridden with more frequency than others.

I vote don't bother me with registration.

Aaron:)

The organisation I worked for initially in cycling advocacy about a decade ago undertook an investigation of bicycle registration, because of the lobbying by some motorists. The outcome of the "inquiry" was that the scheme would cost way more than it would benefit. The administration of issuing stickers alone would make it unfeasible.

It's the reason why mandatory registration has not worked. Jack the registration fee up to $100 a year, and the administrators might suddenly get interested and give cyclists some power to say: Find my bike!!! But imagine a family with three kids (one bike each) and two for the parents, plus maybe a couple of spares, faced with a registration cost each year like that.

And the idea of etching numbers on major parts... just which part of fantasyland does that idea come from?

A registration scheme would give cyclists no more rights on the road than they have now. It might pander to the motoring lobby in their belief that cyclists should pay to be on the road, but I can guarantee that would be shortlived as some other reason for eliminating bicycles from the road became popular.

Ultimately, it becomes a disincentive for cycling, and as one fellow cynic pointed out, it would just become one more revenue-grabbing exercise by government.

You license a privilidge like a motor vehicle, not a right like human powered transportation.


But if bikes were required to be registered, it would be the end of this "ride as far to the right as practicable stuff"

I am going to just throw this out here but it seems that crimes that carry a very hefty prison sentence seem police take a more interest in. Here you would only get a small sentence for stealing a bike basically possession of stolen property, though I think if it is valued more than $1,500 then it is considered a little worse, but I believe it carries a max sentence of like 6 months in jail. Now unauthorized use of a motor and car theft will land you in TDC prison for up to 5 years. Also HDP has an auto theft division, same thing with drugs it carries as hefty sentences and also HPD has a narcotics division. No Bike theft division to my knowledge.

Mandatory registration - what's next then? mandatory insurance coverage? bicycle licenses? will we all have to do wheelies or something at the dmv to get our "bike licence" ?

I'd support just about anything that would keep people from riding on the wrong side of the road or on the sidewalk. My dog and I were almost killed by a shirtless, grown adult on a BMX who flew around a blind curve on the sidewalk this weekend. Imbeciles!

Mandatory registration - what's next then? mandatory insurance coverage? bicycle licenses? will we all have to do wheelies or something at the dmv to get our "bike licence" ?

Optional insurance availability would be nice.

Mandatory road tests (not wheelies :D) might be a good idea. Even if they only had one question on them: "True or False? You are allowed to ride your bike on the road with the cars."

I am glad people are seeing that registration puts you into a database that is not really public and you have no control over. Of course this happens all the time, but at least the more intelligent percentiles of us know to keep it to a minimum.

1. The gov't knows far too much about all of us already!!

2. Just another expensive bureaucracy to wade through. The gov't is pissing away far too much money ineffectively already. We need less gov't, not more.

Could you imagine having to wait in line at the DMV or BMV or some other dumb acronym to register your bike with some half wit behind the counter? I would rather see more quality bike parking like the ones in London that lock your wheels and frame all together with only 1 U lock. Its like a bike shackle for your bike that claps through everything, then you jsut put your lock through a hole on the bike rack and yuor done. Ill see if i can find pics.... Bike thieves should have their finger and toe nails ripped out one by one in front of a huge audience, maybe film it and make it into a reality tv show, then no one would risk it. All bikes should be registered but that registration should be done on the internet for free using your serial number. I do not want to have to worry about my luggage covering my licesne plate and getting pulled over or something stupid.

One of the main reasons I prefer bikes to cars is that they're so unlike cars. Bikes are simple and cars are not. Anything that makes biking more complicated is quite a turn-off for me.

You license a privilidge like a motor vehicle, not a right like human powered transportation.

But if bikes were required to be registered, it would be the end of this "ride as far to the right as practicable stuff"
I don't believe that "human powered transportation" is a right, at least in the US. What country were you speaking of? A lot of US states don't allow riding bicycles in interstate highways...

But even so, I did not say a license. I said registration and plates, and offered that the only requirement was to appear down at the police station (or dept of motors office) and claim ownership of the bike in question.

The point would be to discourage theft, by making stolen bicycles not very useful.

------

Before I mentioned the possibility of putting the bike's serial number right on the plate, to allow police to easily verify the plate was the correct one for the bike it was on.
,,,,
Another idea would be if some portion of the license plate could be colored the same as the bike frame's main color. That would make it even easier for police to spot a wrong plate on a stolen bike....

(-of course if you painted your bike, you'd have to get new plates--but then, how many times does an average person repaint their bikes? MAYBE once a year?-)

-----

Some people have pointed out the "privacy issue" of being forced to register bicycles, but someone's going to have to explain that to me, because I'm not understanding it. How much benefit of being anonymous can you claim that bicycling affords you now?

License plates for bicycles would be no more an invasion of privacy than license plates for cars are now.
~

I don't believe that "human powered transportation" is a right, at least in the US. What country were you speaking of? A lot of US states don't allow riding bicycles in interstate highways...

But even so, I did not say a license. I said registration and plates, and offered that the only requirement was to appear down at the police station (or dept of motors office) and claim ownership of the bike in question.

The point would be to discourage theft, by making stolen bicycles not very useful.

------

Before I mentioned the possibility of putting the bike's serial number right on the plate, to allow police to easily verify the plate was the correct one for the bike it was on.
,,,,
Another idea would be if some portion of the license plate could be colored the same as the bike frame's main color. That would make it even easier for police to spot a wrong plate on a stolen bike....

(-of course if you painted your bike, you'd have to get new plates--but then, how many times does an average person repaint their bikes? MAYBE once a year?-)

-----

Some people have pointed out the "privacy issue" of being forced to register bicycles, but someone's going to have to explain that to me, because I'm not understanding it. How much benefit of being anonymous can you claim that bicycling affords you now?

License plates for bicycles would be no more an invasion of privacy than license plates for cars are now.
~
Good arguments. But I don't think you've supported the basic idea that registration will prevent theft or even aid in recovery of stolen bikes. Do you have any evidence for this, or evidence for any other benefit of registration?

If the cops would actually use it to curb bicycle theft, I would support it.

Could you imagine having to wait in line at the DMV or BMV or some other dumb acronym to register your bike with some half wit behind the counter? . . . All bikes should be registered but that registration should be done on the internet for free using your serial number. I do not want to have to worry about my luggage covering my licesne plate and getting pulled over or something stupid.

As one of the two people who polled as having a registered bike, I can tell you I didn't stand in any line. I filled out the on line form using my serial number. I paid a nominal amount that covers the cost of the database and the decals, plus a little bit left over for bicycle education. The primary purpose is to make it possible to return bikes to their proper owners if they are recovered. Otherwise, there is often no proof of ownership. It doesn't guaranty that your bike will be returned, but it ups the odds.

http://www.nationalbikeregistry.com/images/MCGRUFFrgb150x208-2.gif

I see they already have a National Bike Registry (http://www.nationalbikeregistry.com/), and it's affiliated with McGruff the Crime Dog. You can register your bike for 10 years for $10. They have a list (http://www.nationalbikeregistry.com/signups.html) of LE agencies that work with the NBR. (My city isn't on the list, so I won't be registering.)
For your 10 bucks you get a tamper-proof bike sticker that looks like this:

http://www.nationalbikeregistry.com/images/nbr_label.gif

There's really only one war going on in the secular world, Statists vs. Individualists.

I'm so proud of most of you arguing for individual rights and privacy, it almost brings a tear to my eye.

It's bad enough that you can't hardly name one "freedom" that you think you have, that you don't pay for in ever depreciating paper "dollars. I'd rather lose ten bikes than have to endure one more stupid Statist "registration" plan for "my own good".

Now where do I go to get my chip?

I think there is already enough red tape/ goverment BS in my life already. I'd be happier if they kept out of my bike ownership.

In the old west the penalty for horse thivery was death. Maybe stricter penalties for bike theft would be a better deterent.

One of the main reasons I prefer bikes to cars is that they're so unlike cars. Bikes are simple and cars are not. Anything that makes biking more complicated is quite a turn-off for me.

+10000000000000000000000000000000

-----

Some people have pointed out the "privacy issue" of being forced to register bicycles, but someone's going to have to explain that to me, because I'm not understanding it. How much benefit of being anonymous can you claim that bicycling affords you now?

License plates for bicycles would be no more an invasion of privacy than license plates for cars are now.
~

It's not a question of what benefits of being anonymous we have now, it's a matter of what we lose by not being anonymous. If being "fully anonymous" in a perfect realm where man roams free among animals and hunts for food is a "glass completely full" situation, every time we are entered into some database or are otherwise able to be linked with our actions and our identities, our "anonymous glass" decreases. To Individualists and privacy advocates (especially online, but that's another topic) like myself, it is important to keep this glass as full as possible. Of course the day you are born and named your glass is starting to lower, but by decreasing situations where I can be tracked to what I do or how I choose to live, I am allowing others to know something about me, especially without my knowledge.

It's kind of like a credit report. Everyone who is not a complete hermit or lives on cold hard cash only eventually has one, and it tells a record of who we are financially. You are automatically entered into this system the day you take out a student loan or any other number of things. You have no choice not to enter, if you want that education, apartment, job, or what have you. Now if any institution (or individual, for that matter) can look at it without our consent, it is a little scary. Luckily the government tracks who accesses each profile. Nevertheless, the point is for a privacy advocate non-uncompromisable systems like this are unfavorable. They deplete our anonymity glass quickly.

Bike licenses will also take an unnecessary, but perhaps trivial, drink at our glass as well. So we see it is a matter of what kind of picture others can paint about us without ever even seeing us in-person or talking to us. A potential employer would know what type of bikes I have, how long I have been biking, and so on. Is this a big deal in itself? Not really. But it can allow the employer to make potentially false assumptions about us before meeting us.

A car license is a similar invasion of privacy. It is not just the fact that we have a license, but it is the metadata, if you will, that surrounds the simple license. The license allows other people we don't know and trust to know more information about ourselves. Plus there is the driving records, insurance records, and other data that is tied to a license. Who knows if that would transfer to bikes? And don't even start on the issue of licenses being a gateway to a "RealID" system.

In point, a bike license increases the amount of specific information untrusted outsiders know about me without my express knowledge.

Most people are fine with this, and in reality you can likely live a prosperous life with no worry, but others believe every little bit of personal information that goes public creates a slippery slope into others knowing everything about you.

I'm kinda paranoid like that also--I think it's best not to give any more information to governments and especially corporations than absolutely necessary.

OTOH, I doubt if a bike registration is really much of a threat to privacy. No more than dog registration or signing up with an ISP, anyway. Probably just name, address and serial number. But still, unless it's going to be effective, why bother?

BTW, cycling is very public anyway. All the time people are telling me, "I saw you across town riding your bike by that massage parlor." Funny, I didn't see them--I guess because the car conceals them from public view to some extent.

We get freedom or security, I like freedom it makes me feel secure to be myself.

One of the main reasons I prefer bikes to cars is that they're so unlike cars. Bikes are simple and cars are not. Anything that makes biking more complicated is quite a turn-off for me.

Even though I have one of my bikes registered, I have to really agree with this. Plus I kind of like being "off the radar" if you know what I mean. The anonymity when I ride is kind of cool, not that I am doing anything wrong, I just don't like being linked to my personal info such as a license plate of a car would, keeps things private.

It should be made clear that the reason why motor vehicles are registered/licensed is that they are taxed. Registration has no role other than to collect money.

The fact that a vehicle might be identified as suspected of having been involved in a crime, or might have been stolen or whatever, is ancillary, but useful to police -- who are way separate from the authority to which the registration fee and information is paid and which holds the database information. So, peabodypride's points are well-founded... access of your information is accessible by many tiers of government.

Driver licensing, however, is a different issue, in my mind, because the licence should recognise that the individual has attained a certain level of competence in driving a vehicle. However, if that truly was the case, the fee would be once-only, or if recurring, a re-test must be taken to determine that the competence remains. Of course, drivers' licences simply become another tax after the initial granting of the licence.

I can't help but think that any state or region that collects a bicycle registration fee is sopping up the revenue just to run the scheme. Like I said in a previous post, to make it worthwhile, $100 a year seems like a good starting point.

But I have to ask the question: Why don't people take more care of their bikes and their security so we don't have to worry about bicycle registration? Start by either recording the serial number on the BB or etching in (at your own expense) your driver's licence number on some discreet part of the frame. Then acquire a good quality lock, and arrange parking in appropriate places.

By the way, if bicycling (and by extension, walking, and skateboarding and in-line skating and other forms of human powered transport) lose their right to freedom, the world is doomed to total control by government. THAT is a scary thought.

There's really only one war going on in the secular world, Statists vs. Individualists.

I'm so proud of most of you arguing for individual rights and privacy, it almost brings a tear to my eye.

It's bad enough that you can't hardly name one "freedom" that you think you have, that you don't pay for in ever depreciating paper "dollars. I'd rather lose ten bikes than have to endure one more stupid Statist "registration" plan for "my own good".

Now where do I go to get my chip?

I don't see how a bicycle registration system can interfere with individual rights. We already have a system of motor vehicle registration, property tax rolls, public utility customer databases and more.

Bicycle registration does not control who gets to own a bicycle or ride one. It simply connects the bicycle to its owner. How does this limit freedoms in any way?

I heard on globetreker that there are more bike thefts in Amsterdam every year than there are bikes. IOW, many bikes are stolen more than once a year. I believe the bikes are registered there, too. The city next door to me (East Lansing, MI) has mandatory registration. They also have a lot of bike thefts.

incorrect.

My bike is registered. It's a sticker rather than a plate though. Bike registration is already mandatory here. Non registered bikes are subjected to a $50 fine. I don't know how vigorously it's enforced though.

Mostly it helps get your bike returned if it is stolen. My city has around $300,000 worth of bikes stolen each year.

In theory. Some of the local list chatter is making it clear that having the receipt, registration number and the bike at the police auction isn't enough to get the Madison police to return your bike to you without you buying it again.

I still pay up, but it doesn't do a damn thing to deter theft... just ups the odds that the police won't jack my bike.

I don't see how a bicycle registration system can interfere with individual rights. We already have a system of motor vehicle registration, property tax rolls, public utility customer databases and more.

Bicycle registration does not control who gets to own a bicycle or ride one. It simply connects the bicycle to its owner. How does this limit freedoms in any way?

What happens when it becomes a privilege to register your bike.

Are there any statistics that show bike registration improves the chances of getting your bike back if it is stolen.
I bet if you ask at the police dept they wont be able to show you that it does.

It's not a question of what benefits of being anonymous we have now, it's a matter of what we lose by not being anonymous.

A car license is a similar invasion of privacy. It is not just the fact that we have a license, but it is the metadata, if you will, that surrounds the simple license. ....And don't even start on the issue of licenses being a gateway to a "RealID" system.

:love: I've only known three other women (assuming you're a woman) that have understood these rather esoteric concepts, or more importantly, cared. I have a hunch your knowledge base in this subject runs deep. "Metadata" What an appropriate word, I love it.


It should be made clear that the reason why motor vehicles are registered/licensed is that they are taxed. Registration has no role other than to collect money.

So, so true. It's easy for most to see that our "government" has turned into a "govcorp" for profit, complete with "laws" that compel you to do business with only their monopoly.
We've become State licensed "mules", hitched to the "tax plow", in so many areas of our lives.



I don't see how a bicycle registration system can interfere with individual rights.

Any and all forms of registration interfere with your freedoms, in that registration equates to control, control equals more taxation. So Statism is all about control, and the presumtion that the individual, is, or potentially will be, a wrongdoer in the eyes of the State, at some point, thereby justifying the need for control.

And you're right, in that we already have many forms of registrations, with the King of them being the Socialist Security #, so yes, I don't suppose more really matter, at this stage of the game, but how much interference do we ultimately want in our lives?

I can't help but think that any state or region that collects a bicycle registration fee is sopping up the revenue just to run the scheme. Like I said in a previous post, to make it worthwhile, $100 a year seems like a good starting point.



I don't see how a bicycle registration system can interfere with individual rights. We already have a system of motor vehicle registration, property tax rolls, public utility customer databases and more.

Bicycle registration does not control who gets to own a bicycle or ride one. It simply connects the bicycle to its owner. How does this limit freedoms in any way?

Let me tell you this. I am a college student with some very expensive toys and I ride a rather princely track bike, but during most of the year I could _not_ afford a $100 registration. And there are thousands of others who would be disallowed to ride one because for them $100 is a considerable sum of money.

I know the actual dollar amount is not important because it's just us shooting the bull on an Internet board, but every time we impose a limit on riding (except for those trivial like a $1/year registration), we are actually limiting freedom.

Let me tell you this. I am a college student with some very expensive toys and I ride a rather princely track bike, but during most of the year I could _not_ afford a $100 registration. And there are thousands of others who would be disallowed to ride one because for them $100 is a considerable sum of money.

I know the actual dollar amount is not important because it's just us shooting the bull on an Internet board, but every time we impose a limit on riding (except for those trivial like a $1/year registration), we are actually limiting freedom.

This is absurd, and so are all the arguments here about governments using bike registration fees to raise revenues. The typical fees are under $5 or $10. I doubt very much if that even covers the administrative expenses of the registration system. You're on firmer ground with your privacy argument, but that's pretty shaky also.

The best argument against registration is that it's an unnecessary (although minimal) burden for cyclists. Also, it's probably largely ineffective--or at least of unproven effectiveness--at preventing theft or improving the odds of recovery.

I don't believe that "human powered transportation" is a right, at least in the US. What country were you speaking of? A lot of US states don't allow riding bicycles in interstate highways...

If you were floating this whole "registration" thing in the hopes of forming another lucrative layer of government bureaucracy you were going to head up, it would sure make a lot more sense.

I don't even support car registration. :)

I don't think it would do anything to reduce theft. If that's the case, then it's just more pointless bureaucracy.