Advocacy & Safety - Seattle Times Editorial in Support of Bike Licensing

so is this guy anti-cyclist or what? and for those of you wondering why cyclists are portrayed so negatively in the press, it's because guys like this are in charge of the press room, and no amount of obeying the law or kissing their ass is going to make them change their minds.

Seattle Times Sunday, December 7, 2008
Impose license fee on King County cyclists
By James F. Vesely
Times editorial page editor
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2008474326&zsection_id=268883724&slug=opin07jimvesely&date=20081207


Local government finances are so dire, it is time to consider — and enact — an annual fee on bicyclists.

A $25 annual fee for owning a bike is a natural outgrowth of the enormous amounts of trails, lanes and accommodations the region has made to cyclists. Those funds would be useful for local cities and King County. It would also make cyclists true members of the world of transportation, rather than free riders on the tax rolls.

Special licenses are not new. We license dogs, our cars, our boats, our motorcycles, our pleasures in hunting and fishing, as well as many other outdoor activities. Cyclists, known for their community spirit and exalted senses of self, should welcome this opportunity to help government support their activities.

A simple exploration of current and future bike trails shows a remarkable generosity on the part of Puget Sound taxpayers. Whenever new transportation projects are studied, bike lanes are as automatic as white striping.

In 2012, for example, cyclists and pedestrians will have trails 14-feet wide in SoDo near the stadiums. Any Highway 520 floating bridge schematic includes a lane for cyclists. How about if they help pay their share? If Interstate 90 and Highway 520 bridges are tolled, it's only logical to expect cyclists to pay a modest toll, too, for access to a great path across the water and spectacular views.

Seattle went through a lengthy process of enhancing the Burke-Gilman Trail through industrial Ballard. Among the pretzel routes, all were made to make cycling as easy as possible. Those costs, born by the industries of Ballard and the city, could be offset by a modest fee.

Asked Friday if Seattle has any tax on cyclists, Mayor Greg Nickels admitted no, but said he thought there was a bicycle license fee in the 1940s, clearly a precedent.

On the Eastside, cyclist organizations were heavily involved in the creation of the Lake Sammamish Trail, a wonderful route between Redmond and Issaquah. But an annual fee would reduce the encumbrance on the body politic and direct fees toward the user group. That's the way bureaucrats talk when they propose things like another nickel on the gas tax.

Cyclists, the most green of our population, would embrace the annual fee schedule as a way of ensuring more proactive cycling activity before our various boards and commissions. I am sure the King County Council, beset by onerous tax shortfalls, would welcome this chance to bring cyclists to the fee-based premise of future county funding. Same thing for City Hall, where cyclists enjoy a strong representation, which has prompted the city to earmark millions of dollars for more bike lanes and paths. Twenty-five bucks a year for each cyclist is a bargain in exchange.

In the same sense, Critical Mass, the earnest congregation of cyclists who sometimes take over our streets, would be beneficial to law and order. A Critical Mass accumulation of cyclists would allow Seattle police to quickly spot those who have a bike license and those who do not, with appropriate fees and penalties.

King County already imposes a user fee on cyclists. It's illegal to ride a bike without a helmet — something dads and their children should remember as they take to the sidewalks on those first trips with Christmas bikes. Yet the contributions to the cycling community by the region greatly outweigh the return from those healthy bikers. Cycling organizations should be the first to recognize their members' use of urban and suburban pathways is also the pathway to street credentials with other members of the public.

Those organizations are powerful. Bicyclers across the region are known as accommodating and uncomplaining — as long as they get their way. Now is the time for them to show it by contributing to the public trough.

Will any of this happen? No, because from my perch, I don't know of a single, elected public official with the guts to propose a bike tax.

James F. Vesely's column appears Sunday on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is: jvesely@seattletimes.com; for a podcast Q&A with the author, go to Opinion at www.seattletimes.com/edcetera

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2008/12/05/2008473374.gif

More discussion (http://bikeportland.org/2008/12/10/what-would-gandhi-say-about-bicycle-licenses/) at BikePortland.org

There is an already lengthy thread on this topic in the Pacific Northwest Forum, and lots of comments already on the newspaper's website.

This is just a guy popping off to try to start an argument. He uses some provocative phrasing to try to attract more attention.

I'm guessing the only people who paid attention to this was bicyclists.

I wonder if this guy also wants to start licensing pedestrians for all the sidewalks and crosswalks?

Will any of this happen? No, because from my perch, I don't know of a single, elected public official with the guts to propose a bike tax.

Sure, because if they do something reasonable such as tax by wear and tear or weight... motorists are going to pay far far more.

I am willing to pay a buck a pound for each of my bikes, as long as he has to pay a buck a pound for each of his vehicles.

As has been pointed out, the cost of running a bureaucratic licensing system would make this another impractical.

We should start our own licensing system. Keep it bare bones so that no money is wasted. 100% voluntary, with an annual fee, for a license. No test. A fraction of the money goes to providing the license, the rest is donated to various municipal or state funds for maintaining roads and/or bike paths.

And then anytime someone brings up this idiocy, we tell them "STFU" (Sending the Fees to the USA) ;-)

I am willing to pay a buck a pound for each of my bikes, as long as he has to pay a buck a pound for each of his vehicles.

I donno, that could be pretty expensive for all those motorists... how about 50 cents a pound? ;)

Same tired old arguments and re-inventin of the [square] wheel. For refutation info please see

http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/index.htm#top

Imagine his dissapointment when it doesn't happen.

Imagine his dissapointment when it doesn't happen.
I think he would be dissapointed if it did happen. Then he would not be able to recycle this old drivel in a "new" article, five years from now.

yes, vesley is anti-cyclist. he is inflamatory and his argument is ill-founded.

licensing is a disincentive to cycling. king county has no interest in adding barriers to cycling.

I think he would be dissapointed if it did happen. Then he would not be able to recycle this old drivel in a "new" article, five years from now.

Worse, what does he do when cyclists flash their license while they claim the lane... :D

Plain nutty.
Washington state is the Florida of the West coast.

Plain nutty.
Washington state is the Florida of the West coast.

Not even close. People like this are the exception and cycling in the PNW is the antithesis of the deathtrap that is cycling in Florida. Check out the stats of bicycle deaths per capita, I am pretty sure that they are the worst in the nation.

In 2012, for example, cyclists and pedestrians will have trails

There should be licences for pedestrians too (vile freeloaders).

Let's do mandatory training while we're at it, and throw their butts in jail for non-compliance.

http://www.bikearlington.com/cImg/bike%20rodeo.jpg

Bad idea, it would be very inefficient given the cost of administration.

It would be far more practical to put a tax on bikes purchased locally, even then I might restrict it to big box stores like Target and Wal-mart since taxing bike shops would probably cause people to purchase at different bike shops not subject to the tax (or online).

I would not be totally against a tax on bikes purchased if the money went specifically to making things more bike friendly. Especially if the tax were a multiplication, where for every $1 of tax paid $5 of revenue will be spent on bike lanes and so forth (since there are positive externalities to bike usage).

Am I the first to post this? There's a response piece (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008505127_opin13bikeclub.html) and it's very good.

I actually can somewhat agree with this response...
I get so sick of hearing these arguments. I would gladly pay a reasonable license fee for riding my bike on city streets, if no other reason than to make ignorant and dangerous drivers shut up. Let's stop the argument once and for all, and most of all, let's make sure that any license fees required of cyclists is required to be spent on cycling infrastructure and not to further support the burning of unsustainable fossil fuels.

Of course I want the fee to be equitable to any similar fee levied on motorists... such as 50 cents a pound, or 50 cents a mile.

EDIT: actually what I want is a huge sign hanging from my bike that says "road user fees paid." And in "fine print," NOW BACK OFF!

Vesely's second column appeared in Sundays paper.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008505230_opin14vesely.html

Vesely wasting two columns in a row about cyclist licensing..... what a tool.

Big Deal a one time $15 fee... OK I can deal with that...

But now I have to wonder, is this what VC leadership brings? Hawaii has a program for education of elementary school students, and a $15 fee... and what has this done for their ridership? Or how motorists treat cyclists... and is this all Hawaii or just Honolulu?

Genec, you know I have discussed both in the past.

VCers got the BikeEd program started. The "City and County of Honolulu" (government for all of Oahu) already had the registration fee well before BikeEd and without any VC help. The registration fee was to help paint bike lanes and for bike paths (so which cyclist do you think helped the fee get put in?). At least VCers got much of this funding moved to support part of the BikeEd program (but most of BikeEd funding is still from private donations). The registration fee use to be $8 every 2 years. But most cyclist only got their bikes registered when they were forced to when buying the bike at a LBS. The LBS did not and still does not like being the initial collection agency. The City finally figured out no one sent in for the second registration sticker and that they could make more money by changing it to a one time $15 fee.

The only reason cyclist here have not rebelled against the fee is because some of the money goes to BikeEd, (although the City wrongly implies that most of the money does). Several years ago a huge amount of the money got stolen out of the Bikeway special fund and put into the general fund. The money never got put back; big stink on that one.

Hawaii State law allows collection of such registration fees if the County wishes and is willing to run the program. Honolulu is the only county which does so.

I am not happy about Vesely using Honolulu for his propaganda.

Big Deal a one time $15 fee... OK I can deal with that...

But now I have to wonder, is this what VC leadership brings? Hawaii has a program for education of elementary school students, and a $15 fee... and what has this done for their ridership? Or how motorists treat cyclists... and is this all Hawaii or just Honolulu?Go back and reread my several post (that you have already seen) on the benefits I have observed from BikeEd.

Go back and reread my several post (that you have already seen) on the benefits I have observed from BikeEd.

Well just so the world that is following this thread knows... can you elaborate here?

And BTW bear in mind that I have no problem with a one time fee, or even an annual fee, provided that the fee is prorated based on either weight, road wear or mileage, and is also applied to autos... and I have no problem with a public school based bike education program.

But just for the record, I have to wonder, what has such a system brought, or bought? Can you give any examples?

Well just so the world that is following this thread knows... can you elaborate here?

...
But just for the record, I have to wonder, what has such a system brought, or bought? Can you give any examples?http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=7664701&highlight=bikeed#post7664701

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=7794316&highlight=bikeed#post7794316

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=7964994&highlight=bikeed#post7964994

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=5016593&highlight=bikeed#post5016593

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=977285&highlight=bikeed#post977285

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=3503329&highlight=bikeed#post3503329

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=7786537&highlight=bikeed#post7786537

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=7788486&highlight=bikeed#post7788486

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=7811392&highlight=bikeed#post7811392

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=4058638&highlight=bikeed#post4058638

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=4417402&highlight=bikeed#post4417402

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=4853125&highlight=bikeed#post4853125

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=7664701&highlight=bikeed#post7664701

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=7794316&highlight=bikeed#post7794316

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=7964994&highlight=bikeed#post7964994

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=5016593&highlight=bikeed#post5016593

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=977285&highlight=bikeed#post977285

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=3503329&highlight=bikeed#post3503329

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=7786537&highlight=bikeed#post7786537

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=7788486&highlight=bikeed#post7788486

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=7811392&highlight=bikeed#post7811392

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=4058638&highlight=bikeed#post4058638

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=4417402&highlight=bikeed#post4417402

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=4853125&highlight=bikeed#post4853125

Bunch of anecdotes with no actual facts... this was the only presented fact: "It [BikeEd Hawaii] has helped about 60,000 O'ahu public school children since its inception in 1989. City and state funds pay for BikeEd salaries, equipment and other operating expenses."

So far I really don't know what BikeEd Hawaii has done... Are there any before and after studies? Any statistics, however slanted? Anything other than your personal "beliefs?"

Genec, we have been through this over and over and over again. I have clearly told you that most of it is my observations. As you already know there are virtually no truly valid studies for cycling. Any study produced can be picked apart at infinitum.

And I am not the only one here making correlations about the program.
"The State of Hawaii Master Bike Plan discusses a possible correlation between BikeEd Hawaii and a lower bicycling accident rate on their Accident Data page."

If you want the study, then you expend the money for it. We would rather educate another 20,000 school kids with that money.

If you do not want to accept my observations and do not want a grade school level VC BikeEd Program in San Diego; FINE. But it is working for me here.

By the way, it is now 80,000 kids trained.

I have never seen a "bicycle advocate" repeatedly state he wants training and then constantly harp at those that do training that they have not done some expensive study on the training. Genec, give it a rest will you?

Genec, we have been through this over and over and over again. I have clearly told you that most of it is my observations. As you already know there are virtually no truly valid studies for cycling. Any study produced can be picked apart at infinitum.

And I am not the only one here making correlations about the program.
"The State of Hawaii Master Bike Plan discusses a possible correlation between BikeEd Hawaii and a lower bicycling accident rate on their Accident Data page."

If you want the study, then you expend the money for it. We would rather educate another 20,000 school kids with that money.

If you do not want to accept my observations and do not want a grade school level VC BikeEd Program in San Diego; FINE. But it is working for me here.

By the way, it is now 80,000 kids trained.

I have never seen a "bicycle advocate" repeatedly state he wants training and then constantly harp at those that do training that they have not done some expensive study on the training. Genec, give it a rest will you?


No I will not give it a rest... you claim one thing, but cannot back it up in any way... So are there now 80,000 regular cyclists around you? I doubt it, as those numbers are pretty significant.

Yeah I want education, but if you've read anything I have written about it, I always state "Road Use" education... thus covering both cyclists and motorists. Teaching cyclists how to ride does nothing when the rest of the road users refuse to let those cyclists ride in the way they have been taught.

The US has the easiest drivers license system of any industrialized nation... how about if we bring up the level of ALL road users to learn how we ALL can share the roads.

Here is a typical example of my thoughts toward education...
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=8011644&postcount=38

Until drivers learn how to drive and share the road, teaching cyclists alone how to ride bikes is like having sex all by yourself...

I just posted a comment, I think some of you may like it:


I read both the authors articles and happen to agree. Cyclists should contribute money to the infrastructure that supports them.

If only there were some general tax, say based on income or a small percentage of money spent at retail shops that could go into some kind of organized system of government. Part of that organized system of government would create bicycle infrastructure and everyone's taxes would pay for it, because everyone has the same opportunity to use it. It would be just like the roads are now, supported by everyone whether or not they use them.

Oh wait. That is the case already. Cyclists and motorists pay the same taxes which go to the roads, highways and bridges whether or not someone owns a car or bicycle and independent of frequency of use. The new expensive bureaucracy in charge of licensing and the added task of enforcement to an already overworked police department would be not be welcome either.

For good measure, I'll reiterate the user quoted in the author's second article: "idiot"

No I will not give it a rest... you claim one thing, but cannot back it up in any way... So are there now 80,000 regular cyclists around you? I doubt it, as those numbers are pretty significant.

Yeah I want education, but if you've read anything I have written about it, I always state "Road Use" education... thus covering both cyclists and motorists. Teaching cyclists how to ride does nothing when the rest of the road users refuse to let those cyclists ride in the way they have been taught.

The US has the easiest drivers license system of any industrialized nation... how about if we bring up the level of ALL road users to learn how we ALL can share the roads.

Here is a typical example of my thoughts toward education...
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=8011644&postcount=38

Until drivers learn how to drive and share the road, teaching cyclists alone how to ride bikes is like having sex all by yourself...We have already been through all of this.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=7811392&highlight=bikeed#post7811392

Our BikeEd is not about more butts on bikes as you demand. It helps keep our kids safer and gives the added benefit of them becoming more courteous drivers towards cyclist.

So now you are into the Bek style, broken record badgering. :bike2:

yeah. that's right. :rolleyes: Genec obviously thinks someone is a broken record and it's apparent who he's talking about, cbhi.

As to my commentary?



Two facile editorials in a row from James Vesely about his desire to license bicyclists diminishes the quality of this newspaper.

The undercurrent of James' commentary is his disdain for bicyclists and sharing public rights of way with bicyclists and pedestrians. James Vesley thumbs his nose at the City of Seattle voters and our collective desire to improve public rights of way under the Bridging the Gap Levy we approved in 2006.


His column last week was wasted on a cockamamie scheme to raise significant revenues to pay for pedestrian and roadway improvements by licensing bicyclists.

James' latest column discusses licensing plans in other cities that seemed to fuel his interest in funding bicyclist education programs and tasking the police force with more rigorous records keeping to aid in the recovery of stolen bikes.


Local Governments should go further in encouraging bicycling as an effective mode of transportation. Local governments should not add barriers to bicycling under the guise of a revenue source for ANY cycling program.

Seattle voters verified their support for bicycling and pedestrian improvements along public streets under the Bridging the Gap Levy.

Mr. Veselys' dogged advancement of cyclist licensing showcases his thinly veiled disdain for bicyclists and pedestrians traveling public rights of way under our own power.

That's what I had to say to Mr. Vesely.

Death, taxes and...free riders? (http://www.velonews.com/article/86111/legally-speaking-with-bob-mionske---death-taxes-and--free)

Or, for the longer, full-length version, A bicycle tax? (http://www.bicyclelaw.com/blog/index.cfm/2008/12/18/A-bicycle-tax)

After reading the two commentaries, responses and taking a few moments to digest it all, I've concluded that I would have zero issue paying for a license to use my bike.

I definitely think it should be weight based.

I also conclude that the changes to affect cars and commercial vehicles as well.

Also, funding raised by this could only be used for bicycles, and if that means special roads running parallel to any and all roads to alleviate the massive amount of bicycle congestion that is occurring in the U.S. so be it.

But the facts speak for themselves, the author does NOT want bicyclists to pay taxes to carry their own weight. He wants those funds to go to help improve the infrastructure of roads and highways that are used by cars. He wants bicyclists to get off 'his' roads and have limited access to those arteries that are outside of the current MUPs.

There was also several references from respondents to the commentary that an annual tax should be based on the value of the bike; most people lie about the value of their vehicle for tax purposes. So much so, that Texas had to create a law stipulating that you can't 'sell your car for $1 - you lying goon' because it was an overused tactic with used cars.

I honestly laugh when I read the responses over because you can see the hate and venom laced throughout the 'general publics' responses.

Bottom line, a tax like this would not help Seattle, or anywhere else that decided to do the same. The general population of drivers want everybody else to foot the bill to make their drive home from work that 1 mile easier.

.....But now I have to wonder, is this what VC leadership brings? Hawaii has a program for education of elementary school students, and a $15 fee... and what has this done for their ridership? Or how motorists treat cyclists... and is this all Hawaii or just Honolulu?

It's just Oahu, not the rest of the islands, Gene. and the result? a stunning 1.5 percent modal share in a city that has 70 degree weather m/l the entire year. But the island has officially committed to improving rider conditions along roads, just not like CBHI envisions. So, the VC camp on Oahu stand as obstructionists to the Oahu bike master plan, stunting rider share, but still collect 15 bucks for every new bike and the transfer fee.


Good point, gene, and one I missed earlier..... the VC LOVE this licensing to pay for classes disincentive, look at how much praise CBHI heaps on a program funded thru mandatory licensing of bicycles.....

the VC's abundant desire for autocentric road rules makes me consider the possibility the VC inner scantum would LOVE mandatory training and licensing to serve as another layer of disincentive to cyclists interested in just going on their bikes for a ride. mandatory licensing to feed training would serve as a disincentive to citizens interested in trying biking for fitness or all the other reasons and help leave the roads autocentric.

I see the VC's desire for narrow lanes ('great riding' say some :rolleyes:) no bike specific laws in state vehicle codes, mandatory training and licensing as tools for a hidden agenda to keep the roads clear for motor vehicle traffic.

interesting and yet so disappointing the vc's high poobah could stoop so low and lead the followsheep unwittingly into low rider share and continued autodomination.

mandatory licensing for vesley's concerns? ill founded.

the VC camp's desire for mandatory licensing to fund training? Sinister disincentivism.

Once again Bek does his false claims which have been repeatedly addressed in so many other threads.

The broken record named Bekologist skips on.:bike2:

I don't think motorists really want each road user to pay for the costs they inflict on society. If that was the rule, driving a car would be much, much more expensive. Motorists have been free riding for years. They pay zero for the poison they dump into the air. Zero.

The US has the easiest drivers license system of any industrialized nation... how about if we bring up the level of ALL road users to learn how we ALL can share the roads.

FWIW here's MD's driver's test: http://www.marylandmva.com/DriverServ/ROOKIEDRIVER/tutorial/Tutorial_intro.html

20 questions, that's it! (If anyone takes the test if they could let me know what bike related question they got.)

FWIW here's MD's driver's test: http://www.marylandmva.com/DriverServ/ROOKIEDRIVER/tutorial/Tutorial_intro.html

20 questions, that's it! (If anyone takes the test if they could let me know what bike related question they got.)

Looks a lot like the test I took to get my license.

Actually, wow! They actually have one for bicycles; even better for explicitly stating that it could only be a child in two of the answers: strike one for commuters and roadies alike, bicycles are toys. Credit to Maryland for putting the kid on the street though, not playing gutterninja on the sidewalk. More credit to Maryland for making the correct answer to be cautious, adjust driving, and expect the kid to do something stupid. I'll give the state of Maryland $50 when half the drivers they passed don't buzz this kid instead.

Never having seen any tutorial, scored 17/20 as non-US. One was a driving error, rather than not being familiar with actual legislation as in the case of the other two.

Basically, a farce.

Seemed a little easier than the Ohio one I took a couple of months ago. The Ohio one is on a computer now, not sure when that happened, it wasn't like that when I first took it. I had to get 75% to pass. I only got a 75%, because as soon as I answered enough questions to pass, the test ended! You'd think that they would continue the test, just so in case you miss a couple, you'd remember the correct answer.

Basically, a farce.

This pretty well sums up driving "education" and licensure requirements in the US....

Looks a lot like the test I took to get my license.

Actually, wow! They actually have one for bicycles; even better for explicitly stating that it could only be a child in two of the answers: strike one for commuters and roadies alike, bicycles are toys. Credit to Maryland for putting the kid on the street though, not playing gutterninja on the sidewalk. More credit to Maryland for making the correct answer to be cautious, adjust driving, and expect the kid to do something stupid. I'll give the state of Maryland $50 when half the drivers they passed don't buzz this kid instead.

Ya and just think what that does for grown adults riding a kids toy on streets that do not look like the one pictured. :notamused:

this is going far off topic, but i wonder if this is the type of test the pro licensure vehicular cyclists have in mind?

I can see some of the questions now:

When preparing to bike, first:

a)straddle a bike sized appropriately for you;
b) get your neighbors together for a group ride;

or

c)prepare snacks?

this is going far off topic, but i wonder if this is the type of test the pro licensure vehicular cyclists have in mind?

I can see some of the questions now:

When preparing to bike, first:

a)straddle a bike sized appropriately for you;
b) get your neighbors together for a group ride;

or

c)prepare snacks?Sounds like more bitter, left field, false accusations by you.:bike2:

this is going far off topic, but i wonder if this is the type of test the pro licensure vehicular cyclists have in mind?

My guess this would be one question:
According to popular consensus the safest place for a cyclists to ride is:
A) On the sidewalk
B) Against the flow of traffic
C) taking the lane with the flow of traffic
D) none of the above

[Correct answer would be D] :rolleyes:

Sounds like more bitter, left field, false accusations by you.:bike2:

woah, bub. lighten up, complainer.

I was spoofing the ridiculously easy test the human car linked us to!

Do you have a much more difficult, punitive bicycling licensure test all cooked up there, cbhi???? or do you feel that licensure of bicyclists IS a disincentive to bicycling and should be fought against at all costs? You ARE pro-bike sales fees to benefit bike instruction in your 1.5 modal share municipality, aren't you??

That s/b 1.1 modal share municipality (2007 results are out.)

I've been enjoying our recent PNW incapacitation-by-snow. I feel like I've finally been getting my property, car, and sales taxes' worth out of these damn roads by clomping around on them with our car in tire chains, sort of getting 3 yrs' worth of wear-and-tear out of the infrastructure in just a week or 2.

Technically speaking, this isn't an editorial.

An editorial is an unsigned opinion piece by the entire board of editors. The fact that one of the hacks signed for it means that it's a signed opinion piece and therefore not reflective of the entire board. Not to mention that it's pure trollduggery and bunk as many of the posters here before me have pointed out. I wonder if this is going to be the Fairness Doctrine of the biker set: something to get everybody's blood pressure riled up for even when there's not a chance of it happening.

Same tired old arguments and re-inventin of the [square] wheel. For refutation info please see

http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/index.htm#top

That article does not seem to be there anymore. Instead I see a report on car/bike collisions. Anyone got a backup link/copy?