genec

The laws in California and the city of San Diego combined, require you to be "licenced." In effect, registered.

Do your your local laws also require this?

Part of cvc21200, which grants rights to the road, also cites cvc39000?

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21200.htm

21200. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division, including, but not limited to, provisions concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs, and by Division 10 (commencing with Section 20000), Section 27400, Division 16.7 (commencing with Section 39000), Division 17 (commencing with Section 40000.1), and Division 18 (commencing with Section 42000), except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.


https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d16_7/vc39001.htm

39001. (a) The department shall procure and distribute bicycle license indicia and registration forms to all counties and cities which have adopted a bicycle licensing ordinance or resolution. Those counties and cities shall issue the indicia and registration form to the owner of any new bicycle, and may, upon request of the owner, issue an indicia and registration form to the owner of any bicycle which complies with Section 39007.

The department shall charge and collect a fee, not to exceed the cost of procuring and distributing the license indicia and registration form, for each bicycle license indicia and registration form issued. All fees collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited in the Motor Vehicle Account in the State Transportation Fund. Those fees are hereby continuously appropriated from the account for use by the department to defray costs to procure and distribute the bicycle license indicia and registration forms.

So what is San Diego's policy on license and registration of bicycles... assuming they have "adopted a bicycle licensing ordinance or resolution?"

If we are quick to cite cvc21200, which grant us rights to the roads, should we not also be in compliance with SDMC34.02? (Local city Code)

https://clerkdoc.sannet.gov/legtrain/...rt04Division00

§34.02 Bicycle License Required
Except as provided by Section 34.09 of this article, it is unlawful for any person to operate a bicycle upon any public street, alley, sidewalk, highway, or other public property within the jurisdiction of The City of San Diego without first obtaining a license issued by said City. Bicycle retailers are authorized and directed to issue, upon written application, a bicycle license, to any person residing within the City of San Diego. Bicycle retailers issuing licenses will charge a fee pursuant to section 34.02. Fees collected in accordance with section 34.02 shall be sent to the San Diego Fire Department. Bicycle retailers will purchase bicycle licenses and stickers from the San Diego Fire Department. The San Diego Fire Department will return $1 of the $2 license fees collected to bicycle retailers upon return of a completed registration form. License applicants who reside outside the City of San Diego shall be referred to their respective city or jurisdiction of residency. Any bicycle not subject to the provisions of this article may be licensed upon the request of the owner.

How many of you are in compliance with your local registration code or law?

kalliergo 

Looks like a fair amount of work was involved in creating a post intended mostly to bait another forum member, on an issue having little or nothing to do with A&S.

FWIW, (1) The California bike license provisions apply to bicycles, not cyclists. Further, (2) these provisions have nothing to do with safe and legal operation and everything to do with revenue-raising and (mostly ineffective) efforts to reduce bike theft and to aid recovery and return of stolen bicycles.

Finally, (3) the San Diego ordinance only applies to HH if he happens to be a resident of the city proper. Although municipalities frequently draft ordinances which purport to apply to all bicycles operated on their streets and roads, they don't actually have the authority to require folks "just passing through" to purchase their licenses. That San Diego knows this is hinted at by the provision for referring non-residents to other jurisdictions.

Daily Commute

No, I don't comply. Unlike licenses for cars, one city doesn't recognize the license of another. So in Ohio, you have technically have to register your bike in every city, village and suburb you ride through. Since there is no realistic way I could come into compliance, it's not worth trying.

hotbike

It would be nice if the DMV would *allow* cyclists to register their bicycles. Sometimes motorists say that cyclists should be "required" to register their bicycles, but there's a gulf of difference between "require" and "allow".
The old excuse for not allowing cyclists to register their bikes just doesn't fly anymore. The time and expense of keeping paperwork has long since been eliminated by the computer. If cyclists were allowed to register their bikes, most would do so voluntarily. It would be a good thing if every bicycle serial number were on file electronically, to aid Police in recovering and returing stolen bikes.

Let's not overlook insurance. I have my bikes insured, some are on my auto insurance and some are on homeowners. I urge all cyclists to add their bicycles to their insurance policy. ( Although I don't know what you'd do if you rent your house and don't own a car.) Insurance can be done now with most insurance carriers, whereas registering your bike will take some time as the DMV is slow to do anything.

genec

Nah has nothing to do with HH.

What it does have to do with is me riding on a 35MPH road where there are cars parked along the side and there are no alternative routes due to the configuration of canyons in the area.

As I rode down that road, taking the right lane of the two going each way, a fair number of motorists in their cars had no trouble passing me to the left. There were a few however that seemed perplexed by the concept of a cyclist "in their way." Many of the cyclists in the area choose to be sidewalk riders, but at the 15-18MPH I was traveling, sidewalk riding did not seem very practical, and the law (as I cited) gives me rights to the road; to ride not along the curb, but out in the lane as I was doing, to avoid the cars along the right side, and their potential opening doors.

So I got to thinking about a suitable slogan for the back of my T shirt... to "inform" those perplexed motorists. I thought of:

CVC 21200
CVC 21202
Google it.

Well later, I did google CVC21200, just like I had written above, and I realized that 21200 mentioned licensing, or really registration. I then thought about the consequenses of an argument with a cop... who might fall back on the lack of license, as his point, to issue a ticket.

Yeah, a bit convoluted, but I realized that indeed, I am riding in violation of a law and dammit, my argument would fall on deaf ears at that point.

I sent virtually the same message to the local bike advocacy group... no point in us shouting "Same Roads, Same Rules etc," and yet being in technical violation, eh?

genec

That is a good point. It is a local thing, not a state thing, but it is part of the state vehicle code.

Cars have a similar problem however... state by state registration.... and they seem to get by, by allowing one to visit the state in question for a limited period of time without a requirement for local registration.

kalliergo 

I see. Got it.

I stand corrected.

On the other hand, I'm afraid that the CA bike registration "system" is just a silly mess. Half of the municipalities (and university campuses) that have adopted registration ordinances don't even know they are in force and have provided no means of actually distributing the registration materials. Others (especially state university campuses) use the provision almost solely to harass cyclists, sometimes confiscating and impounding the bikes of visitors.

All in all, this is a bad law.

I-Like-To-Bike

How/why did John Forester "allow" this law to stand in his own bailiwick? I thought he was the Man with the Serious Plan for California Cycling Laws.

kalliergo 

Right, but automobiles are required to be registered in every North American jurisdiction (and in every other I am aware of). Thus, it is immediately obvious when a car belongs to a visitor (and often obvious when the "visitor" hasn't registered in his new location 9 months later).

In California, there is no way to know whether a bike without a sticker in a jurisdiction that requires one is (1) owned by a resident not in compliance with the local ordinance, (2) just passing through on a cross-country tour, (3) owned by a cyclist who lives in the next county, where registration is not required, etc.

sbhikes

I don't have any of my bicycles registered. The serial number of my trike is applied with a sticker (and it's #260). I'm not sure what good registering my trike would do as far as theft. Anyway, no, I'm not in compliance.

genec

Sure, I agree the bike system sucks. But in order to win "the argument" in court or with the cop on the beat... perhaps paying that paltry 2 dollar fee (in my case) is worth it.

CB HI

If we have all the same rights and responsibilities, then why is a single registration on a bicycle not good for all 50 states, Canada and Mexico, just the same as motor vehicle registration is under federal law?

If your location of permanent residence requires you to register a bicycle, and you have registered, then you are good to go in all 50 states and all US cities.

If your location of permanent residence does not require you to register a bicycle, then you are good to go in all 50 states and all US cities. IMHO

Since the $2 fee is less money than it takes the city to process the registration, as a protest, I would register to suck money out of the city. If enough cyclist did that, soon the mayor would understand how stupid it is or sadly, try and raise the fee (hard for a mayor to change state law though).

Helmet Head

You have a vivid imagination if you think any argument about you being within your rights with respect to how you're riding in the road would fall on deaf ears due to the lack of a bike registration license.

Last I heard the SD fire dept is no longer issuing these things, and nobody else is either. If true, that means it's technically impossible to comply, except for those who obtained licenses prior to that particular budget cut.

With all due respect, I mean, yes, it would be nice if this were cleaned up one way or the other, but aren't there much more important safety and advocacy issues to deal with?

Wogster

If you rent, you should have tenants insurance, the landlords insurance basically covers the structure, and items in the building owned by the landlord. The landlords insurance does NOT cover items owned by the tenant, therefore many of the companies that provide homeowners insurance, also have tenant policies. The only time the landlords insurance would cover tenant belongings, is where it is required to by law.

CaptainCool

Minnesota repealed their bicycle registration laws in 2005. Links: https://www.winternet.com/~rtandems/mcb/bikelaw.htm I can't seem to find any articles about it. I assume they were repealed for disuse, which is a good thing to see.

genec

There are more safety issues to deal with, sure, but in a court of law, the minor technicalities make all the difference in the world, hence the reason otherwise "criminals" are let go scott free for such technicacalities.

Perhaps you should go back and read the OP, and then the follow up post where I discuss how dealing with an officer can go the wrong way based on such trivialities.

Bekologist

I'd be happy to pay for a bicycle liscense plate, in a weight-levied amount to the GVW of my bicycles and their corresponding wear and tear on the roads. It'd probably be a dollar, a dollar-fifty a year?

I think mandatory liscensing would be a great plan to limit bicycling in communities. maybe the forester crowd can begin lobbying for mandatory liscenses along with their stated goal of removal of all on-road bike specific infrastrucuture.

the elitist prigs just might like that, to limit cycling only to 'serious' bicyclists and set bicycling as populist transportation into the dark ages.

kalliergo 

Where is that goal stated, please?

bigpedaler

interesting point, especially as applied to the question of municipalities not recognizing the bicycle tags (which are still available in my town, but not required). there is a requirement between states to recognize the validity of laws from other states; this does not mean, of course, that you can carry a gun in NYC just becasue you're from Texas. it does mean that your Texas license plate gives you equal right to drive in NYC, it does mean that your Texas wife is still your wife in NYC, and so on. so, the municipal recognition of bicycle tags is moot. it's akin to a level of "limted diplomatic immunity", as the states were considered semi-sovereign in the infancy of this country.

bigpedaler

does everything have to be 'stated' or written out for you?

if i curl my hand into a choking posture and reach for your neck, do i have to say, "i'm going to choke you!" before you defend yourself?

not even the constitution says EVERYTHING in so many written words -- our founding fathers knew the futility of that! so why don't you?

Helmet Head

When someone claims that there exists a "stated goal", don't you think it's fair to ask where that goal is stated? Does doing so constitute a need to have everything be stated?

Kalli's point is clear: Bek's claim that the "forester crowd" has a goal (much less a stated goal) of removing all on-road bike specific infrastructure is false. It's argumentative nonsense.

That's out of line.

I-Like-To-Bike

KalliBoy is a Forester acolyte; if the John didn't state it, it ain't so.

genec

Oh Jeeze... another thread gone to the argument mill of irrelevancy. My points were simple and expressed in post 1 and 5.

There is nothing more beyond that. The law in this state states that my should be "registered" if so supported by the local city.

I felt that a "lack of registration" left me open to a ticket from an overzelous cop.

I thought to share that situation with the rest of you.

END OF LINE.

kalliergo 

I didn't say it was stated, Bekologist did. I asked him for evidence of such a statement. That's pretty simple, and almost anywhere else it would be a perfectly normal request under the circumstances.

I think HH is correct. This seems out of line to me, too. However, to answer in the same spirit:

No, certainly not. I would take action to defend myself as soon as I recognized you as a threat, which I would try to do as early as possible, assisted by my VC experience.

What do you think I should do If I were to determine that you were a threat far in advance of an actual attack? Maybe have George W. put you on the "Axis of Evil" list for preemptive attack?

And, then, would your surviving relatives accept my apology for causing W to kill you in a "shock and awe" attack based upon my faulty intelligence?

I-Like-To-Bike

So did you rush out and register your bike, or did you ignore the regulation like everybody else figured out long ago? That is the bottom line.