Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Should pedal bicycles be licensed?

Hello All,

Should pedal bicycles be licensed?


http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d16_7/vc39001.htm


The fees collected could be used for provident purposes to benefit the
cycling community at large.


With more money safer facilities could be constructed.


If cyclists use the roads why should they not pay as motorists do?


Are we freeloaders?


Cheers,


Neal

No.

Your vision of the complete population of bicycle riders is limited. There are people who are lower income that depend on bicycles for transportation. The fee for licensing a bike, for them, would be better placed elsewhere in their budget.

Once you start licensing, then you'll want to require insurance. See above statement.

Bicycles incur negligible damage to roads. Heavy trucks and utility vehicles (ones that need to use jacks for stability) and motor vehicle crashes incur the most.

Hello All,

Should pedal bicycles be licensed?


http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d16_7/vc39001.htm

The fees collected could be used for provident purposes to benefit the
cycling community at large.

With more money safer facilities could be constructed.

If cyclists use the roads why should they not pay as motorists do?

Are we freeloaders?

Cheers,
Neal

I'm not sure about how these things are arranged in the USA, but I believe it's mostly taxes of divers sorts that pay for the roads. Thus, everybody who pays any form of tax, contributes.

NOOOO!
Why would you need to? How would you determine the process and fees?
I'm pretty sure my fair share of the costs for the road is already paid for. Where i live i don't really see the state adding infrastructure for where i ride, and the things they should be doing that would improve my safety improves everyone else's too.

No. The funding for bicycle projects is already there. We don't need an influx of funds, we need current funds spent more wisely. Also, the vest majority of bicyclists drive cars too. Therefore, most of us are already paying license fees once - it would be absurd to make us pay it twice. Thirdly, as NoRacer alluded to, it places undue burden on lower income people that have to use bicycles for transportation. I think it would make just as much sense to license feet.

This is far from a new idea. Cagers and non cyclists are usually the loudest about demanding that cyclist have a license, number plate and insurance. It won't happen because it would be a nightmare logistically, just to set it all up. And that's on top of NoRacer's point about adding to the financial burden of very low income people.

Hello All,

Should pedal bicycles be licensed?


http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d16_7/vc39001.htm


The fees collected could be used for provident purposes to benefit the
cycling community at large.


With more money safer facilities could be constructed.


If cyclists use the roads why should they not pay as motorists do?


Are we freeloaders?


Cheers,


Neal

Motorists don't pay to use the roads... they may think they do but they do not. Fees collected barely pay for the licensing services themselves.

Motorists pay for the privilege of using heavy, fast, powered, machines on public streets, not for the use of the street itself.

I have liscence plates for two states R.I. and Mass. on bicycles from the early 1950s. They were registered. Why did they stop?

How much can you charge a guy who buys a $25 bike?? Five dollars? Just to do the paperwork and keep track of the fees, is easily more than $5. Then the plates cost something. For every bike taxed and liscenced the state would probably lose a few dollars. It would probably have to be the same as a car to make money, or even just cover the costs. My car registration is $60 every two years. For my $5 bike? For my $80 trike? For my FREE rain bike? $60 every two years for my free bike? You're kidding?

The reduced road wear, and reduced carbon footprint should be a rebate paid to cyclists for saving the road wear and tear, and saving the planet. The health beneifts should get cyclists a discount on their health insurance. And car registration should be free if you ride a bike enough miles.

No. The funding for bicycle projects is already there. We don't need an influx of funds, we need current funds spent more wisely. Also, the vest majority of bicyclists drive cars too. Therefore, most of us are already paying license fees once - it would be absurd to make us pay it twice. Thirdly, as NoRacer alluded to, it places undue burden on lower income people that have to use bicycles for transportation. I think it would make just as much sense to license feet.


Right now an octopus just inked it's Spongebob shorts.

it is a good idea,but not effective.maybe long time later.......

No, but it will come to pass as another tax revenue source, something to further suffocate the honest citizens.

Motorists don't pay to use the roads... they may think they do but they do not. Fees collected barely pay for the licensing services themselves.

Motorists pay for the privilege of using heavy, fast, powered, machines on public streets, not for the use of the street itself.
+1
i had not thought about that last paragraph

back in the 1920's the US supreme court upheld states could, indeed should regulate and license both motor vehicle operators and their vehicles for the large dangers inherent and damages they cause to infrastructure.

Bicycling has long been held as an American fundamental freedom, supported by the privileges and indemnities clause of the US constitution. as to affirmation of our right to travel by bicycle, Swift V. the city of Topeka (at the state supreme court level but a compelling authority) affirmed over a hundred years ago that travel by bicycle is a fundamental freedom in the United States.

Cries to license bicyclists don't hold any legal water. Licensing schemes are also a disincentive to bike transportation, and not cost effective. There is no merit in specious calls to license bikes for revenue.

right now an octopus just inked it's spongebob shorts.

WHAT!?!?!? :roflmao2:

It's been proven to be a "loss leader", as the retail industry says it; just ask NY State.

As was said above, motorists don't pay for the roads through their fees; they just pay for the privilege of operating a potentially deadly weapon on public roads. (PUBLIC roads, as in BELONGING TO ALL OF US.)

I would like to see some protocol for ensuring proper conduct on the roads; but obviously, we haven't found it YET, just look at traffic deaths every year. As far as I'm concerned, when traffic deaths are in just double digits, THEN they can talk to us about our presence on the road.

Short answer... NO!

Long answer... Google some terms like "freedom of movement" and "right to travel", then read some of the concepts behind the right of a free people to move about for their private interests on public roadway. When you apply sound logic, it becomes obvious.

No

Bicycling has long been held as an American fundamental freedom, supported by the privileges and indemnities clause of the US constitution. as to affirmation of our right to travel by bicycle, Swift V. the city of Topeka (at the state supreme court level but a compelling authority) affirmed over a hundred years ago that travel by bicycle is a fundamental freedom in the United States.

It appears to be a bit more complicated than that.

http://www.bicyclelaw.com/road-rights/a.cfm/road-rights-cycling-a-right-or-a-privilege

Has anyone ever been banned from recreational bicycling?
I've never heard of this, and if not, it would suggest that bicycling is a right, not a privilege that can be withdrawn.
Wouldn't it?

edit: but yeah, as njkayaker said, it's probably more complicated than that. ;)

njk's link is telling; it affirms the history (thanks, Bob Mionske), and also points out that there are views other than our own that are as legally compelling, should the issue get to that point.

Bottom line: if cyclists are required to be licensed, we LOSE part of our right to travel, in exchange for. . . what? Some ethereal protection from vigilante drivers? Being treated as 2nd-class citizens because we don't worship at the altar of the almighty car? Licensing, historically, revokes a right to the more limited classification of "privilege".

My first thought is, self-policing, as MTB'ers are often encouraged to do; but that's a little tough in a nation that lives by the mantra, "I'M GROWN, I CAN DO WHAT I PLEASE, AND I DON'T HAVE TO TAKE **** FROM ANYBODY!"

I'm open to suggestions; we need to keep this away from the politicians and lawyers (except for, maybe, Magas and Mionske. . .lol)

It's only complicated if you entertain the ramblings of a lawyer. Listen to one long enough, and you may start to doubt that 2+2 is exactly 4!

If human powered travel is not a basic right in a free country, then the opposite becomes true... it is some sort of "priviledge" that can be regulated, permitted, licensed, fined, taxed & endlessly controlled by the state!

If a person wants to believe they do not have a right, then it becomes true for them, and power is given to the state agency that "gives" out the priviledge.

Think back to the last time you (or someone you know) was pulled over by the law. How did you answer the question "Where are you going?"... how quickly (& mindlessly) was the right to privacy forfeited to the state?

Keep riding your bike like a free citizen!

Who's confused? The people who make the laws, and that's because they listen to the rustle of money in their ears first.

Answering a cop's questions abridges your rights? Really? Sorry, but your privacy gets checked at your front door in society; you enter the public domain, and your right to privacy is subjugated to the right of society to be orderly. Questioning you isn't the same as going through your pockets.

. . . and also license/tax shoes so we can have more sidewalks?

This cyclist already pays many thousands of dollars in taxes, voted yesterday to increase his school tax bill and does not wish to register and pay a fee for his bikes.

It appears to be a bit more complicated than that.

http://www.bicyclelaw.com/road-rights/a.cfm/road-rights-cycling-a-right-or-a-privilege

my brief was accurate, on point and, well, a brief. but thanks for pulling up an article that affirms my framing of the rights versus privileges nature of riding a bike in the US.



yes, we must remain on point and roust out any specious or duplicitous calls to license cyclists. it is an affront to the law, and affront to justice and an affront to common sense.

bikes don't break bridges, bikes don't cause potholes, bikes don't go out of control at the hands of a drunk driver and take out a family in their station wagon.

Who's confused? The people who make the laws, and that's because they listen to the rustle of money in their ears first.

Answering a cop's questions abridges your rights? Really? Sorry, but your privacy gets checked at your front door in society; you enter the public domain, and your right to privacy is subjugated to the right of society to be orderly. Questioning you isn't the same as going through your pockets.

Actually the privacy of my thoughts, intentions, and spoken word are all more sacred than the contents of my pockets.
And then what may be in my pockets (or backpack or trunk) is only subject to search if I have given probable cause.
We are weak in this country when it comes to knowing and retaining our rights. We are easily persuaded by "good of society" notions that result in more taxes, regulation, inspection, intrusion, and whatever else the "state" can dream up.

What do you get in return for the tax you pay on your pet?
Revenue for the government is the ONLY motivation for such an idea.

Hello All,

Should pedal bicycles be licensed?

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d16_7/vc39001.htm

The fees collected could be used for provident purposes to benefit the cycling community at large.

With more money safer facilities could be constructed.

If cyclists use the roads why should they not pay as motorists do?

Are we freeloaders?

Cheers,

Neal

Impractical to do to the point of being impossible.

When you're licensing a car there are lots of places you can stick a prominent tag displaying the registration information. So anyone can see at a glance if a car has the appropriate registration, whether that's in the form of a number plate, tax disc (as we have in the UK) or whatever else is put in place.

A bicycle doesn't have anywhere that lends itself to any form of license registration plate. Such a plate would either be so large as to cause problems with either aerodynamics or simply being damaged or destroyed by snagging on things (along with the potential safety implications of a plate snagging on things at any speed), or so small it couldn't be read from any distance. Microchips, RFID devices etc may work but would be expensive and could only be read by people within range and who had the appropriate equipment.

In many ways a bike is a go-anywhere vehicle in ways a car simply isn't. An irresponsible cyclist could easily remove a larger number plate and claim it must have been broken off when they swerved to avoid some obstacle, or easily obscure a smaller number plate and, in the event they were spotted by the police they could take off across paths, fields, roads, whatever, to avoid capture. A police officer in a car would be unable to follow and a police officer on foot would be too slow. So such a system might allow the normally law-abiding to be fined for committing infrequent offences while also paying for such enforcement to take place, although the scofflaw elements would simply be able to evade it at every turn. In the meantime the costs of administering such a scheme would most likely soak up most or all of any benefits that might arise.

When arguments like "with more money safer facilities could be constructed" the first question would have to be just what sort of facilities might be constructed and how they would be safer. Many people regard segregated cycle lanes as being safer but personally I'd rather ride in the road than travel along a parallel but segregated "cycleway" where I'm sharing the space with small children on scooters, dogs, people walking all over the path oblivious to everything except their iPod and so on.

Others have already touched on the issue of the wear and tear caused to the road by cyclists and the prospect of charging people to walk on tarmac.

Of course another issue would relate to childrens' bikes. Put little Jimmy on a bike with training wheels only to find he strayed off your driveway and onto a public area and there's a cop wanting to fine you for letting him ride without a license? No thanks. What happens when Jimmy can balance without the training wheels and rides to school? Does he need a permit? If so the cost-effective method of letting kids ride to school just got expensive.

If little Jimmy doesn't need a license to ride to school, at what point does he need a license? When he's 15? 18? 21? How long before cops end up either diverted to challenging kids who are 17 but look 18 why they don't have a license, or ignoring the rule altogether? Will we demand that children carry identification documents so they can cycle to school?

Impractical to do to the point of being impossible.

When you're licensing a car there are lots of places you can stick a prominent tag displaying the registration information. So anyone can see at a glance if a car has the appropriate registration, whether that's in the form of a number plate, tax disc (as we have in the UK) or whatever else is put in place.

A bicycle doesn't have anywhere that lends itself to any form of license registration plate. Such a plate would either be so large as to cause problems with either aerodynamics or simply being damaged or destroyed by snagging on things (along with the potential safety implications of a plate snagging on things at any speed), or so small it couldn't be read from any distance. Microchips, RFID devices etc may work but would be expensive and could only be read by people within range and who had the appropriate equipment.
Not necessarily. IF bikes are ever required to have a number plate and validation decal, it would probably be the same size as those issued to motorcycles/non-commercial trailers. These are generally smaller than plates issued to vehicles. As for a mounting spot, it could be attached to the underside of the bike seat or to the bike's rear rack.


Of course another issue would relate to childrens' bikes. Put little Jimmy on a bike with training wheels only to find he strayed off your driveway and onto a public area and there's a cop wanting to fine you for letting him ride without a license? No thanks. What happens when Jimmy can balance without the training wheels and rides to school? Does he need a permit? If so the cost-effective method of letting kids ride to school just got expensive.

If little Jimmy doesn't need a license to ride to school, at what point does he need a license? When he's 15? 18? 21?
It wouldn't apply to young children IF such a scheme is ever implemented. To that end, Jimmy would be exempt till his 16th B-Day, when he would be required to get a numberplate/insurance.

Not necessarily. IF bikes are ever required to have a number plate and validation decal, it would probably be the same size as those issued to motorcycles/non-commercial trailers. These are generally smaller than plates issued to vehicles. As for a mounting spot, it could be attached to the underside of the bike seat or to the bike's rear rack.

That wouldn't work on bikes that have a saddle bag or no rear rack, and still fails to consider that a bicycle is considerably smaller than a motorcycle.


It wouldn't apply to young children IF such a scheme is ever implemented. To that end, Jimmy would be exempt till his 16th B-Day, when he would be required to get a numberplate/insurance.

So now you've got people on the road without tags who may need them but may not. Any passing police officer has to figure out if the young person riding the bike is 15 (and therefore not needing a tag) or 16 (and therefore riding illegally). Is Jimmy expected to carry proof of ID to demonstrate that he's only 15, and if so what form of ID should he have and how much will that cost?

The solution is simple. Require all persons operating a vehicle of any kind on a public facility to have an implanted RFID chip... That way the authorities will not even need to initiate a stop to just check id.

The solution is simple. Require all persons operating a vehicle of any kind on a public facility to have an implanted RFID chip... That way the authorities will not even need to initiate a stop to just check id.

Let's not forget the mandatory 666 tattoo.

So you are proposing that the majority of the nation get some RFID tag? How about if we just tag those that NEVER use a public roadway instead...

Actually the privacy of my thoughts, intentions, and spoken word are all more sacred than the contents of my pockets.
And then what may be in my pockets (or backpack or trunk) is only subject to search if I have given probable cause.
We are weak in this country when it comes to knowing and retaining our rights. We are easily persuaded by "good of society" notions that result in more taxes, regulation, inspection, intrusion, and whatever else the "state" can dream up.

Thoughts -- sure, they remain free, you can THINK, "F U, PIG!" when he approaches you, with total impunity.

Intentions -- there is no crime against INTENDING to do anything. . . until it's done. THEN the intent can be used.

Spoken word, there is no privacy in public. Once you speak in the presence of another, you have AGREED to give up your privacy to that expression of thought.

Probable cause. . . and "REASONABLE SUSPICION".

What we are weak at in this country is knowing the RESPONSIBILITIES that go hand-in-hand with our RIGHTS (none of which are absolute, BTW). Most "good of society" claims for the reasons you list are spin by the special interests that support those simple-focus ideas. (Don't blame the liar if you take him at his word.) A thinking person can tell the difference between a CLAIM of "good for society", and the reality of it.

Because we live in a 'civilized' society, there is give and take; no one has absolute rights. We all have to give up a little to get along; those that don't can generally be found in prison. The strongest idea I put forth, to my kids and anyone who cares to listen, is this: IF YOU WANT THE BENEFITS OF A CIVILIZED SOCIETY, YOU MUST FOLLOW THAT SOCIETY'S RULES.

The degree of personal rights your seem to espouse is under the heading of anarchy.

I'm not telling you to trust every yokel that comes along with a "good of society" argument; HELL, DON'T TRUST ME, IF YOU DON'T WISH TO (I really don't care, we don't know each other). But don't try and tell me that you have any absolute rights, either. You don't even have a right to BREATH, and a higher power (which you may or may not accept as real) will one day remind you of that.

Let's not forget the mandatory 666 tattoo.

So you are proposing that the majority of the nation get some RFID tag? How about if we just tag those that NEVER use a public roadway instead...

GeneC -- dude -- you just uncovered the identity of the AntiChrist!

Should pedal bicycles be licensed?

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d16_7/vc39001.htm


The fees collected could be used for provident purposes to benefit the
cycling community at large.


With more money safer facilities could be constructed.


If cyclists use the roads why should they not pay as motorists do?

Funny you should pick that law and ignore this one:

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d16_7/vc39004.htm

Maximum fee for the first year: $4
Maximum renewal fee per year: $2

Yeah, they'll make loads of money off that.....

Even if they adopted the pricing schedule that they use for cars, that is based upon vehicle value and age. Cheaper cars have lower fees. Older cars have lower fees. I wonder what my 20+ year old bike that I paid $275 for will cost me to register?

Bicyclists already pay plenty for the roads.

http://cdn.publicinterestnetwork.org/assets/28b773b9f18cdb23da3e48a8d7884854/Do-Roads-Pay-for-Themselves_-wUS.pdf

Check out page 6 of this one:

http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf

I would support a bicycle riders license just because most bicyclists in my town are complete idiots. They treat their adult bikes as children's toys. If they had to take a simple test that basically acknowledges how to legally ride I think some of the crap they do would be less common. It would be a lot of trouble to implement though.

Practically I think a mandatory helmet law would help people be more aware that they are not riding a toy.

Should pedal bicycles be licensed?
.....The fees collected could be used for provident purposes to benefit the
cycling community at large.

Don't fool yourself Neal, none of those licensing fees will be spent to improve cycling safety or anything cycling related. They wiil be hijacked and used as Sacramento decides.....

I would support a bicycle riders license just because most bicyclists in my town are complete idiots. They treat their adult bikes as children's toys. If they had to take a simple test that basically acknowledges how to legally ride I think some of the crap they do would be less common. It would be a lot of trouble to implement though.

Practically I think a mandatory helmet law would help people be more aware that they are not riding a toy.

So how would you round up the irresponsible cyclists who still took to the road without taking their test?

To the OP, pedal cycles as opposed to? There are also handcycles and unicycles. I have also seen handcycles on the road. So what about them too.

Also, If they are to be licensed, shouldn't the state statutes' reflect the change by including bicycles in the respective states' definition of a vehicle in the state statutes?

are you going to start charging people for walking or farting too?

I have a better idea, why not publicly execute the moron responsible for thinking of this legislation, I'm sure that will save a whole lot of CO2.

Why did liscense plates on bicycles get discontinued in the 1950's ?

No one ever seems to know for sure. I always think it's because there would be a big loss of money if they did not charge very high rates. And the police have other important things to do, than to try and enforce it.

No. I think driving is rightly a privilege and cycling is rightly a right.