surreal

No kidding. Like I said: big picture, i'm all for it. Selfishly, I'd like to see ppl keep on paying thru the nose to rent their 100sf spot for an hour at some remote lot or meter while I park for free within a few yards of my destination.

Many politicians and internet/radio "personalities" are talking about this. Have been for decades, but it seems more prevalent these past 3 to 5 years. You know which ones; I won't label them b/c apparently that'll get this thread moved.

It hasn't happened there yet, but there has been serious registration talk in NYC, less than 90miles from my home. More importantly, hypothetically speaking, you can bet that local gov't and insurance companies would be looking to keep the revenue flowing if ever bikes did supplant cars on a significant level.

Nope. Let's put on our thinking caps. Around here, most street signs are actually bolted to a l'il stub in the concrete. If you want your bike stolen, thieves will have a better chance at the typical street sign (round here, leastways) than they will at a parking meter. Further, I'm not seeing a whole lot of bike racks going in around me, and many of the ones I see are tiny and flimsy and, like the street signs, bolted to the concrete. Anyone with a wrench and a pickup truck could make off with the bikes in about 30 seconds.

For the record, I wouldn't consider a parking meter the ideal lockup spot, but it does fine for most of my lockin'-up stops. Out in front of the pizzeria or the lbs or the post office for <30 minutes, in the active, well-lit, low-theft areas. Tbh, in many of these cases, the street sign, the portable bike rack, and even the free-lock method, would do fine too. There's just many more meters than there are other options, in my hometown. Why ask for more bike racks when there are literally hundreds and hundreds of meters lining the downtown?

And, let's be honest: the notion that a bike locked to a meter would somehow inconvenience someone parking is daft. I guess I could see how it is slightly more cumbersome compared to a meter with no bikes, but that's kind of like how a quarter is heavier than a nickel. It's not like I ride a surrey or something...

surreal

Yeah, none in the USA. But my mom's ex lived in Amsterdam for decades. He reports that parking a bike there in the 90s was difficult, due to a lack of parking. Biggest problem, he said, was that thieves will get your bike eventually, and few lasted more than a year before being boosted.

If/when driving becomes expensive enough and/or ppl become broke enough in the USA, things will have to change. Perhaps the ppl on the Segwayforums.net LCF forum, or our sister subforum at the rollerskatesforum.net have different theories, but right now, bikes are the best bet we have if the motoring culture in the USA ever crumbles. Or did you think we'd use jetpacks?

Like 90% of the content on this forum, I'm talking about hypotheticals. Many daily cyclists hold utopian fantasies about bikes taking over the auto's role within our society. As a pessimist, I can't imagine that without imagining drawbacks, too.

I really shouldn't have to google this for you, but I'm feeling magnanimous. A few years old, but first hit on google today:
https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201...oses_mand.html The fact is, it hasn't happened yet in NJ, but it has happened elsewhere and we're talking about mainstream politicians. Legislators. Ppl with far more power/influence than argumentative felines from BF.


Not remotely. That's just my view when I focus on my selfish motivations. I'm not selfish all the time. In fact, I'm quite rarely selfish.

I-Like-To-Bike

YOU had to Google it because you are the poster making a claim with no reference, not me. Great, now you furnished evidence of a single state legislator who made a proposal that got nowhere. I suspect you might even find more such instances of proposals that went nowhere since so few people are talking about registration and insurance for bicyclists. BTW still waiting for the evidence that anybody is proposing "insurance" for bicyclists as you claimed that "people" are talking about.

Your posts on the subject of encouraging others to ride bikes speak for themselves about selfish motivations.

surreal

These topics have come up in the media, both on- and offline, for some time now. I didn't have any links to any exact articles memorized because, really, who does? If you want to have some fun with Google, maybe you can find places in the USA where paid registration is already in place, or where insurance was proposed by legislators. (I specifically googled for NJ b/c that's where I'm from; there I go, being selfish again...)

And, yeah, if you're referring to posts on this thread where I'm exploring the selfish side of my attitudes towards cycling, well, no surprise if those reveal some selfishness.

How about you explain exactly what your motivations are? Why does a fellow sit on this forum full-time just to start arguments and demand references? What motivates you to be so dang persnickety?

PS- when you have to reg/insure your bike, I hope you recall this thread.

I-Like-To-Bike

It isn't "starting an argument" to expect someone who posts a provocative statement to be able to support it with something other than I read it or heard it somewhere or a Goggle snippet.

Nor is it a demand for you and/or numerous others to document unsupported guesswork, rumors, conjuring, gossip, and/or fabrications. There is no requirement to acknowledge the absence of factual basis for such claims. The unsupported claims and statments are what they are: unsupported guesswork, rumors, conjuring, gossip and/or fabrications. No need to document that, the absence of references is evidence enough and the indignant huffing and puffing confirms it.

surreal

Reality check: this is an internet forum. This sort of thing does not resemble formal exposition in any way. Posts do not actually need to be annotated.

It absolutely is "starting an argument" when you have nothing to contribute to the actual discussion beyond some skepticism and imperious demands for references. It's even more grating when any source provided is met with snarky comments about how somehow that particular source isn't "good enough".

Maybe you actually have zero interest in transportation/everyday cycling, but those of us who do have, in fact, read/heard/otherwise witnessed online many instances of "ppl" talking about registration/insurance/fees/associated petty financial headaches for cyclists. Which is why the notion that only obscure bloggers are "talking about" this concept shouldn't even require any sources for proof. Would you actually deny having heard about registration/insurance/tags/etc for cyclists in the MSM? Really? You probably won't, because you don't actually make any assertions, denials, informative tidbits, or anything remotely approaching an actual "point". You just demand sources, and then seek to discredit them.

My original statement, that , seems pretty innocuous to anyone who has actually held even a passing interest in transportation cycling during the past decade or two. Somehow, you expressed some sort of disbelief that this is so. You demanded a source, and you preemptively disallowed bloggers, as if you set the rules for this forum. I responded with a reputable source (nj.com) that gives an example of a prominent person (Assemblywoman Tucker-- an elected official--a legislator-- someone who is involved in the law-making process) who not only "talked about" bicycle registration, but actually proposed a bill in my home state. I think that's a pretty brutal example of a person talking about bike registration, but you try to discredit it by saying that it "never went anywhere".

If you'll recall, I never suggested that this had gone anywhere (although it, indeed, has in other places). If my link doesn't prove that ppl have spoken about bicycle registration, then I don't know what would. That you're asking for evidence suggests that you're either being deliberately contrary, or you've never discussed bikes on a political level in the USA before. A careful review of basically every thread on this sub-forum in the recent past will show that you have, in fact, discussed everyday cycling issues, and that you do have a pronounced tendency to pick a contrary stance just to joust with ppl.

It's realllllly boring.

Would you actually argue that the assertion "ppl are already talking about reg/ins for cyclists" is "unsupported guesswork, rumors, conjuring, gossip and/or fabrications?" You have simply got to be kidding me. Ppl have talked about it on this very board!

Roody

Yes, definitely. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's OK to make unsupported assertions...just acknowledge it and move on.

surreal

What is wrong with this forum.... we've read ppl talking about it on here! It's not a fabrication; it's not a guess; it's not a rumor; in no way does it "conjure" anything... I guess it's gossip, but everything has the potential to be gossip. But, really, it's an assertion that deals with something so commonplace that it hardly needs a source to support it.

"Unsupported assertion", my foot. Absolutely ridiculous. This is something that y'all have talked about, yourselves.

GodsBassist

+1

I appreciate the fact that you can separate what you want for yourself compared to big picture stuff. I want to see society move beyond car dependence, but would be lying if I said I didn't have ulterior motives. The more separated bike infrastructure there is where I live the more mobile my own personal family unit is. #whypeoplegottaruintheflava

Roody

Well, "ppl" talk about the Mayan Calendar too. Mandatory registration is an equally unreal threat to the cyclist way of life, IMO.

Rowan

Hobart has dispensed with parking meters and has gone with single pay units as pedestals on the footpath covering seven or eight spaces. It's a very elegant solution to vandalism, impact damage and coin security. But no locking bikes to them, so the street sign, railing fence or bike rack are the only options (fortunately, there are a few of the latter around the place).

Rowan

You think. Go to one of the news websites that has comments sections on it, and observe what happens when bicycles are mentioned, say, with bike lanes or safety. In the case of several I frequent, there is not one other subject that creates as much activity and heat as cyclists -- even politics!. Unfortunately, politicians and public servants "listen" to what is written there, and they are the ones who make decisions on these sorts of things. If they read much more of this sort of stuff, they will move towards registration, and it will likely be at a price that reflects both the cost of collecting it and the facilities that are installed.

It has happened in the past with the boating and fishing communities with licensing and registration fees for activities that once were free of such imposts.

I should add this: I am making observations based on my experience working in government. I don't agree that cyclists, especially those who already own motor vehicles, have driving licences and pay all sorts of taxes and fees to do so, especially fuel excise, should not have to pay twice to use the same facility -- that is, the roads.

prathmann

Your statement that "ppl are already talking about registration and insurance for bikes" implies that this is something that is on the increase and more likely now than it was in the past. But I remember when I was growing up in the '50s my rear bicycle fender had a series of annual registration stickers stuck to it - just like my car license plate does now. Later they did away with the annual renewal but still required an initial registration of each bike before finally getting rid of bicycle registration altogether. Can't speak for all states and municipalities (and a few do still require registration), but that's been the trend in the states and cities where I've lived. So my impression is that while there are indeed a few people still 'talking about' registration, that's a change from the past when many passed laws requiring it.

Rowan

Government is always looking to increase its revenue. The bicycle advocates want more and more people on the roads making "free" use of facilities. Cost recovery is one of the catchphrases of government (think national parks, for instance). When there is a critical number of bicycle riders around, it won't be long before the tax man's eyes gaze upon them as a source of so-far untapped revenue.

surreal

Do you deny the existence of the Mayan calendar?

As far as mandatory reg being an unreal threat to cyclists, I wish you were right. But, in some places, it's already a reality. Interestingly, it's NOT a reality in Massachusetts, b/c a 2013 Bicycle Safety Bill actually repealed the law that any municipality in Mass could require residents to register their bicycles, to require bicycle rental businesses to register their bicycle fleets, and to require bicycle shops to file reports identifying the purchaser of every bicycle. This law was on the books for 7 years. Equally interesting: none of the towns in Mass took advantage of the law.

Here's a link for all y'all skeptics:
https://www.google.com

You still haven't told me how i was guessing, lying, fabricating, conjuring, gossiping, or spreading rumors when I observed that ppl are talking about bicycle registration. You also haven't told me how a bike thief is going to steal my pike from a parking meter while I eat a slice of pizza. Of course, I'll need some references, too.

prathmann

Maybe, but what I've actually observed happening is the exact opposite. More and more of the communities that used to require cyclists to pay for either annual or one-time registrations decided that it was costing them more for the bureaucracy than they were gaining in revenue and got rid of the program - even during the 70s bike boom when there were more bikes than now.

Rowan

This is 2014. Not the 1970s. Look to big government corporations that are going bankrupt now. Those debts have to be paid somehow, anyhow. As I pointed out, the same could have been said of fishing and boating licences and registration.

prathmann

Sure, but in the 50s I needed to get an annual registration for my bikes (or at least my parents did). In the 70s I had to get a one-time registration for my bikes and now in the 10s I don't need to get any registration. The trend seems pretty clear - and although a few places may have started bike registration programs I have seen far more places get rid of theirs. OTOH, my boats needed to be registered throughout the 50s, 70s, and 10s and although I don't fish, the people I've known who did had to have licenses during that entire time as well.

Finally, some towns around here have actually declared bankruptcy (Vallejo and Stockton are both within easy cycling distance), but charging cyclists was never mentioned as a possible remedy there - so I don't see your proposed connection between bankrupt governments and bike registration. Bike registration was pretty common in the past but was found to cost more than it ever brought in and to have other negative effects so it has generally been abandoned. Sure, there are always a few voices calling for it again, but what usually happens is that someone actually looks up the history and crunches the numbers and as a result the proposal is quietly dropped. I see no evidence that the long-term trend for less bike registration is in danger of reversing.

B. Carfree

Eugene went to free downtown parking. They removed the heads from the parking meters and replaced them with a metal circular bike emblem to facilitate locking bikes to the posts. This was a cheap way to exceed the demand for bike parking while gifting free parking to motorists.

I-Like-To-Bike

Presumably this is just so much idle speculation on your part.

If not, when do you expect U.S. state or local "Government" entities to tax, license, register and demand insurance from the owners of cell phone users and other popular devices as a source of so-far untapped revenue. Those cell phone users are making free use of government monitored air. I heard somewhere that some people may be talking about "government" looking for just such sources of revenue.

Roody

I heard that the Mayan government is going to start taxing calendars.

wahoonc

Already do... my current cellphone bill has about $20 in taxes on it. What I find a bit obscene is my land line/DSL bill (which is about to go away) the mandatory "fees", recoveries and taxes are over $30 of the total. My base bill for a land line phone and mediocre DSL is $59.95, with all the added on recoveries and taxes it is ~$90 a month.

I cannot find the link, but there are several economists that believe that US citizens are some of the highest taxed people in the world based on per-capita income, but don't know it because most of the taxes are hidden, and we get less for our tax dollars than many other countries. Looking at government expenditures as a percentage of GDP is a real eyeopener. At the local level expenditures versus tax revenues makes for some interesting reading too.

Aaron

GodsBassist

Source?

#MLAorAPAisacceptable

I-Like-To-Bike

Obviously since the "Government" is in need of more money, "ppl are talking about" new and increased taxes as well as registration fees and insurance for those phones and devices to raise even more revenue. Don't forget about those multitude of people using their computers, tablets and smart phones on wifi and Skype and other means to beat the land line taxman.

"PPl are talking about" registration fees and insurance for all those gizmos that use government controlled air. Maybe even registration and insurance on every pair of shoes for use of the streets and sidewalk with a doubled fee for running shoes. Why not, if any far fetched taxman fantasy nightmare is good enough to fear increased bicyclists on the street?

Roody

So what do you think about Elly Blue and bikenomics?https://www.salon.com/2014/01/12/the_...rise_of_bikes/