Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Vehicular Cycling (VC) (http://www.bikeforums.net/vehicular-cycling-vc/)
-   -   Should pedal bicycles be licensed? (http://www.bikeforums.net/vehicular-cycling-vc/777070-should-pedal-bicycles-licensed.html)

nealhe 10-22-11 12:57 PM

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

NoRacer 10-29-11 09:16 AM

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.

hagen2456 10-29-11 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nealhe (Post 13399779)
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.

crawstuff 10-29-11 07:20 PM

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.

Mark Stone 10-29-11 09:32 PM

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.

Fargo Wolf 11-02-11 05:01 PM

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.

genec 11-02-11 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nealhe (Post 13399779)
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.

2manybikes 11-02-11 08:20 PM

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.

Snowman219 11-03-11 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tractorlegs (Post 13429512)
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.

yifeng vivi 11-03-11 03:59 AM

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

JacktheFlash 11-03-11 05:30 AM

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

crawstuff 11-07-11 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genec (Post 13446299)
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

Bekologist 11-08-11 05:08 AM

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.

imi 11-08-11 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowman219 (Post 13447082)
right now an octopus just inked it's spongebob shorts.

WHAT!?!?!? :roflmao2:

DX-MAN 11-08-11 05:57 PM

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.

Chief 11-08-11 07:44 PM

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.

bhchdh 11-08-11 09:46 PM

No

njkayaker 11-09-11 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bekologist (Post 13466730)
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-right...or-a-privilege

imi 11-09-11 08:20 AM

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. ;)

DX-MAN 11-09-11 10:28 AM

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)

Chief 11-09-11 10:29 AM

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!

DX-MAN 11-09-11 04:35 PM

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.

zonatandem 11-09-11 04:42 PM

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

gcottay 11-09-11 08:14 PM

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.

Bekologist 11-10-11 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njkayaker (Post 13471363)
It appears to be a bit more complicated than that.

http://www.bicyclelaw.com/road-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.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:01 AM.