General Cycling Discussion - "NO!" to (govt led) bike registration

They'll tell you it "only cost (small small amount)".
Yeah, for now.

They'll tell you we need a revenue stream to invest in bike paths.
Yeah right, and who pays the revenue stream for pedestrians? What, you gotta pay a tax to walk on the sidewalk?

Dunno about you, but I've been riding just fine in my younger years when we didn't have bike paths. What's the big deal now? More traffic? Yeah, but more traffic means it's moving slower too. What about dedicated bus lanes that the MOTORIST has to pay for (in London for example, we've had many two lanes roads being blocked by one lane, dedicated to bus lanes). Who pays for that? The car owner is paying for the entire length of road, even though half of it is dediated to buses. They should reduce our damn taxes and obtain additional money from the bus companies (they probably are in some format).

They'll tell you some dumb excuse after another. The fact is, they're attempting to find more revenue streams. More ways to tax us, and I dont like it. And neither do you. So whenever this kinda stuff comes up, just say NO ok? We dont want to be monitored all the time. Bikes cause no pollution, no traffic, no wear on the tarmac. It IS however a form of freedom, and those in control do not like us to have freedom.

The only thing they have left is "we wanna stop cyclists from breaking the law" by which they mean "we dont want you running red lights". If that's all there is to it, then stop running red lights. I agree when it's safe to do so (no police, no peds, no cars), then go ahead. Whenever I pass a ghost cycle (the whites ones where a cyclist has died), it's always at a junction/intersection. Just be careful there. Dont do dumb things that'll attract risk of injury or problems with the cops, and they wont have any more excuses to tax us. It may not stop them from taxing us, but at least they'll be doing it without a reason.

JUST. SAY. NO.

ew. i haven't bought a California bicycle license though its "required" for the city of Davis. its two stickers with numbers on them but i'd rather not have somethign that silly on the seat tube of my Cervelo...

This has been done before: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/882018/braveheart_freedom_speech/

I'll never register my bikes...EVER

I would pay if there were real infrastructural changes.

The downside is that taxing cycling would discourage people from riding which would be a massive set back.

I also happen to agree with bus lanes.

By the way OP, where do you think "sidewalks" come from? someone somewhere is paying a tax for them.

I'm moving this to Hybrids & General Cycling as it doesn't strictly pertain to Road Cycling only... thanks :)

i WOULD be in favor of bike registration for NYC restaurants, though.

they are the ones who buy, and therefore create a market for, stolen bikes in NYC.
as a result, you can't lock up a nice bike anywhere, and lock up any bike, you need to carry 20lbs of locks and chains.

registration required
receipt required for registration
$300 fine for biking without registration
work with LBS to set up bulk deals and maintenance programs...make it cheaper to buy than to steal.

I would pay if there were real infrastructural changes.

The downside is that taxing cycling would discourage people from riding which would be a massive set back.

I also happen to agree with bus lanes.

By the way OP, where do you think "sidewalks" come from? someone somewhere is paying a tax for them.

Yup, but there isn't a separate Pedestrians Tax. Similarly, there shouldn't be a separate Cycle Tax.

By the way OP, where do you think "sidewalks" come from? someone somewhere is paying a tax for them.

I don't know how it works where you're from, but in Austin and San Antonio, sidewalks are payed for by the property owner or the developer of the land. Even after the city takes over ownership and maintenance of the streets, the sidewalks are still the responsibility of the land owner. Sidewalks are rarely payed for by taxes.

They'll tell you it "only cost (small small amount)".
Yeah, for now.

They'll tell you we need a revenue stream to invest in bike paths.
Yeah right, and who pays the revenue stream for pedestrians? What, you gotta pay a tax to walk on the sidewalk?

Dunno about you, but I've been riding just fine in my younger years when we didn't have bike paths. What's the big deal now? More traffic? Yeah, but more traffic means it's moving slower too. What about dedicated bus lanes that the MOTORIST has to pay for (in London for example, we've had many two lanes roads being blocked by one lane, dedicated to bus lanes). Who pays for that? The car owner is paying for the entire length of road, even though half of it is dediated to buses. They should reduce our damn taxes and obtain additional money from the bus companies (they probably are in some format).

They'll tell you some dumb excuse after another. The fact is, they're attempting to find more revenue streams. More ways to tax us, and I dont like it. And neither do you. So whenever this kinda stuff comes up, just say NO ok? We dont want to be monitored all the time. Bikes cause no pollution, no traffic, no wear on the tarmac. It IS however a form of freedom, and those in control do not like us to have freedom.

The only thing they have left is "we wanna stop cyclists from breaking the law" by which they mean "we dont want you running red lights". If that's all there is to it, then stop running red lights. I agree when it's safe to do so (no police, no peds, no cars), then go ahead. Whenever I pass a ghost cycle (the whites ones where a cyclist has died), it's always at a junction/intersection. Just be careful there. Dont do dumb things that'll attract risk of injury or problems with the cops, and they wont have any more excuses to tax us. It may not stop them from taxing us, but at least they'll be doing it without a reason.

JUST. SAY. NO.


Who is this "They" you are ranting about? A handul of cranks and crackpots posting on blogs or writing letters to the editor?

Who is this "They" you are ranting about? A handul of cranks and crackpots posting on blogs or writing letters to the editor?

Thanks... That same question was the first thing in my mind. I was looking for a reference or a link to some article.

Thanks... That same question was the first thing in my mind. I was looking for a reference or a link to some article.

Me too.
I was looking for a story about some newsworthy legislation being proposed somewhere, but I guess this is just some random rant.

Beware of "they"!

Ok. I'v got my tinfoil hat on. Time for the OP to explain :P

I'm aware that there are several commercial outfits that will take the information on your bike and store it. Not a bad idea...
As a police officer, I'm well aware of the problem of bike theft and how difficult it can be to prosecute the thieves. I would imagine that of the dozens (maybe hundreds) of reports I've personally taken, only a tiny fraction of the victims could give me the serial number of the bike.
Worse, when we enter the serial number into NCIC (National Crime Information Center), they only take the serial number. The other descriptive information on the bike is not entered.
So, if we get a positive "hit" on a recovered bike, we have to bear in mind that bicycle manufacturers use no organized or industry-wide numbering system like auto makers do.
So, it's entirely possible to get exactly the same serial number on several different bikes...

A lot of bike thefts qualify as felonies these days; in most states it's over 500.00.

Fight the "They"!!!!

Gov'ts will quickly regret this move. All of sudden, they'll have a "tax" paying constituency wanting more bike trails, improvements thereto and bike lanes with law enforcement against harassing/errant drivers. Bad idea. bk

I'm aware that there are several commercial outfits that will take the information on your bike and store it. Not a bad idea...
A


What concerns me with these outfits is: You're giving information on your (very expensive) bike to a computer somewhere. How secure is this information? What will prevent a determined thief, who has a customer wanting a 1969 Red Cinelli, from finding your 1969 Red Cinelli at your address? :eek:

What concerns me with these outfits is: You're giving information on your (very expensive) bike to a computer somewhere. How secure is this information? What will prevent a determined thief, who has a customer wanting a 1969 Red Cinelli, from finding your 1969 Red Cinelli at your address? :eek:

I can tell you here in Massachusetts The bicycle infrastructure is very advanced & improving constantly. Most lights have Bicycle sensitive pressure pads or trip lines. Bicycle routes are clearly marked in the streets. Boston is constantly promoting Bicycle paths and routing & in general is very supportive of Bicycle commuting. I also have to say that the community for the most part has been very friendly to Bicycle riders. Bike paths are expensive but there is also a trade off. for every bike commuter there is less ware & tear on roads, less congestion, less health care related expense. It is a win win. I don't believe we need another tax to discourage people from Bikeing.

receipt required for registration
My road bike is older than me and my uncle who purchased it 3,000 miles away has been dead for 10 years. Where am I going to get a receipt for it?


$300 fine for biking without registration
Same thing. Are those of us who are unable to provide a receipt to be expected to pay a $300 fine every time we ride?


work with LBS to set up bulk deals and maintenance programs...make it cheaper to buy than to steal.
I can buy a set of bolt-cutters for ~$20. No LBS could stay in business by selling bikes for $19.99.

I don't like bicycle registration. Already, there are services like the National Bike Registry to register frame serial numbers with tracking services, so adding another is pointless. The disadvantages are many for mandatory registration:

It is another database for blackhats to compromise and sell to thieves for targeted thefts, or in extreme cases, holdups.

A registration database likely would have no printed privacy policy or regulations on use. Who gets to sift through the information and correlate it with other database entries for more invasive uses? Would insurance companies get another excuse jack up premiums on road bike owners because they go faster than those with beach cruisers, and thus more chance of a higher speed collision?

It would be another lowbrow tool for municipalities to get money. Yes, this is a slippery slope argument, but it wouldn't be far-fetched for bike hostile cities to start charging a registration fee (likely the same as motorized vehicles) as another revenue stream. I can see the argument now, "if it is a vehicle and has vehicle rights on the road, it pays the vehicle registration fee." Perhaps they might add some "inspections" for another hit of $50 a year. Of course, tracking bikes allows parking tickets to be issued with the bike owner facing arrest in some areas. I can see "bike parking meters" springing up in downtown areas where people have to pay $2 an hour to lock their bike up in some "authorized" location or else face seizure of the bike or fines.


We already have good registration databases, and perhaps what is needed is for more marketing by bike shops of services like the NBR so people have their bikes in the recovery list before it leaves the shop. We don't need any more mandatory databases that would be hacked, compromised, and abused.

Who is this "They" you are ranting about? A handul of cranks and crackpots posting on blogs or writing letters to the editor?

Typically government led initiatives, usually to generate more revenue or exert greater control.

I can tell you here in Massachusetts The bicycle infrastructure is very advanced & improving constantly. Most lights have Bicycle sensitive pressure pads or trip lines. Bicycle routes are clearly marked in the streets. Boston is constantly promoting Bicycle paths and routing & in general is very supportive of Bicycle commuting. I also have to say that the community for the most part has been very friendly to Bicycle riders. Bike paths are expensive but there is also a trade off. for every bike commuter there is less ware & tear on roads, less congestion, less health care related expense. It is a win win. I don't believe we need another tax to discourage people from Bikeing.



I don't like bicycle registration. Already, there are services like the National Bike Registry to register frame serial numbers with tracking services, so adding another is pointless. The disadvantages are many for mandatory registration:

It is another database for blackhats to compromise and sell to thieves for targeted thefts, or in extreme cases, holdups.

A registration database likely would have no printed privacy policy or regulations on use. Who gets to sift through the information and correlate it with other database entries for more invasive uses? Would insurance companies get another excuse jack up premiums on road bike owners because they go faster than those with beach cruisers, and thus more chance of a higher speed collision?

It would be another lowbrow tool for municipalities to get money. Yes, this is a slippery slope argument, but it wouldn't be far-fetched for bike hostile cities to start charging a registration fee (likely the same as motorized vehicles) as another revenue stream. I can see the argument now, "if it is a vehicle and has vehicle rights on the road, it pays the vehicle registration fee." Perhaps they might add some "inspections" for another hit of $50 a year. Of course, tracking bikes allows parking tickets to be issued with the bike owner facing arrest in some areas. I can see "bike parking meters" springing up in downtown areas where people have to pay $2 an hour to lock their bike up in some "authorized" location or else face seizure of the bike or fines.


We already have good registration databases, and perhaps what is needed is for more marketing by bike shops of services like the NBR so people have their bikes in the recovery list before it leaves the shop. We don't need any more mandatory databases that would be hacked, compromised, and abused.

You guys conveyed my thought a lot more eloquently than my OP ranting did. Thank you.

For those who asked for 'source', I didn't look for any. I was listening to a bike podcast where the guy mentioned some new law for cyclists, got me thinking about all these bike registration schemes I've heard about over last three years, the time when British govt attempted to create bike number plates at a 'nominal' cost (at launch, who knows what this cost will be further down the line) but it didn't take off. Last I heard, they're still looking into it. I dont have a specific source, but there are pletny of articles out there.

For those who asked for 'source', I didn't look for any.

I didn't think so. :innocent:

Beware of "they"!
http://os2.dhs.org/~john/them.jpg

I would register my bikes if it became required. But after I did I would always use every applicable exception to the "as far right as practicable" law.

in Canada, we had the long-gun registry debacle: A $2mil. initative to keep track of guns. The idea was the police responding to an address would know whether or not guns were in the house, and if a gun was recovered (had been stolen) it could be traced back to the owner. $100mil later, fewer than half the guns in the country are registered, it hasn't stopped a single crime, and police are still as clueless when they go to a house.

that being said, the police can't return stolen bikes if they're recovered. there's no way to prove who owns the bike (most receipts don't include serial numbers). Your bike gets stolen, the police recover it, your only bet to get it back is to buy it back at the auction. Perhaps a registry isn't a bad idea, as long as its properly maintained. In my eyes, it could only work at a municipal level, and not under the pretense of 'path improvments'.