JoeTown244GL

Frankly, suggesting the whole tax, title, license, and registration thing for bicycles on the road is often meet with death threats and flames the size of solar flares. But the more I think about it, the more it sounds like fair a trade for our use of the public roads built with all the public’s money.

Now before you load up your bazookas let’s examine the up side of being the man’s beotch.

Once we are taxed the man has to recognize us as legitimate road users. He may in your state already, but even in current bike utopias it is a half hearted recognition at best. License me and you have to design for me.

Next, as a licensed operator of a legal vehicle you can no longer claim “the bike swerved in front of the car” as most auto accidents with bikes seem to be written up. Nope, I’ve passed the same stupid test the idiot driving the car has passed + the bike component. Johnny Law cannot dismiss the cyclist so easily any longer.

With taxes comes the right to ***** and whine like farmers and children. We all know that car drivers have their transportation subsidized by federal, state, and local policies promoting the construction of roads and by our national fascination (government policy) with providing gas in cheap and plentiful quantities. With taxes comes a seat at the table. Don’t think it’s true. Ask yourself why you have to buckle your seat belt in Kansas, but you don’t have to wear a helmet on your motorcycle? They organized and *****ed – it’s the American way.

Car drivers whine like rich children at the mall when they don't get their super duper 8-lane bypass to suburbia because, in American *****ing and whining is the way the game is played. Once we become a source of revenue the rules change in our favor. Sure, there is a considerable downside. Life isn’t fair. We need to realize that in order to get safer and better roads, increased recognition by decision makers, protection from dangerous drivers, and the status of human beings carrying their share of the tax burden as seen by the rest of the road users. I think we need to take this leap as a community.

Let’s address cost. How much could it really end up costing? My guess is a liability insurance policy, license, title and tags couldn’t cost more than $100 a year – even in Massachusetts. During the development of the enabling legislation at the state level the points about the zero-emissions, zero-road wear, and near zero-threat to others will be made. Any taxing program developed by the state couldn’t charge the cyclist more than their real costs. The revenue simply wouldn’t be there. You can’t get blood out of a turnip. So, at the end of the process you’d have a program where your bike was titled (perhaps this even cuts down on bike theft), insured for liability, and you’d have some sort of tag on your bike identifying you as a taxpaying citizen. The tag could be as simple as a sticker on our helmets with the current year.

Those are good things in my opinion.

Putting on my asbestos long johns.

PS – I’m not including you mountain bike types or the casual trail users. On road operators only.

PurpleK

actually, it's pretty common knowledge among most serious cyclists that we already pay taxes for roadways. If you lump together all the gasoline taxes, license fees, etc that are devoted to highways, it comes to about 60% or so of all actual costs to build and maintain the roadways. (Not quite sure of the exact percentage, but it's somewhere near that. Anyway, you catch my drift.) It should also be pointed out that the lion's share of this funding is directed toward interstates and other primary roadways where bicycles are generally excluded. So where does the balance come from? General fund revenues paid by all taxpayers - cyclists, transit users, property owners, the whole gamut. Studies have been made that show cyclists actually pay more than their share, and in fact subsidize motorists to an extent. General fund revenues are used more often for the local streets, which happen to be where most cyclists do the vast majority of their riding.

This is something I wish would get more attention so that motorists would realize we pay our share too, and are not freeloaders on the roadways. We are riding on PUBLIC rights-of-way, which means meeting the travel needs of ALL the public, not just those that choose to go by motor vehicle.

Yoshi

I honestly don't believe that with taxation and registration comes fair treatment. If we were guaranteed fair treatment (I don't know how "they" could guarantee that however) then maybe I'd change my stance, but as it stands right now, I'm against it.

JamesV

Good poll question.

Taxes -- yes, all for it, but only if there's a dedicated user fee trust fund and it pays for bike paths, lanes, bike route shoulder sweeping, etc. What's to tax since we don't use gasoline while cycling? Tires and tubes. Put an excise tax on them. If the tax reduces some motorists' attitude that we should get off the road because they pay highway taxes and we don't, then a bicycle tire and tube tax is worth it!

License -- not sure if you meant license for the bike or the cyclist, as in a license plate or a driver's license. No to both. DMV would be clueless on how to test cyclists, I don't want a license plate on my bike, and I don't want to carry an operator's license either.

Title -- maybe, if there was a standardized system of factories engraving a "VIN number" on the frame. Buying and selling bikes would become a hassle but might be worth it if it helped with recovering stolen bikes.

Insurance -- might be attractive if offered as an option under Auto policies.

randya

I already pay for the roads through my property taxes, gas taxes and motor vehicle registration, also sales taxes (if you got 'em where you live); except I mostly choose to bike instead of drive. Biking actually preserves roads instead of damaging them, so there's a net benefit to the roads from the avoided driving. Plus a bicycle registration and license program would probably never pay its own way, let alone fund 'improvements', so it would be a drain on the state or local treasury rather than an income source. Bottom line - I pay plenty of taxes for roads already, and they are mostly going to subsidize someone else's driving habit. I'm not paying anything extra for what are usually substandard 'separate but equal' bicycle 'improvements'.

my58vw

I am against any form of bicycle licence... but insurance... I would do...

Would have to cover theft, damage to bike, cars, injury, etc... good idea where liability could be a problem.

As to tax, charge a tax on certain bike supplies... and use them for street sweepers, bike lanes, etc.

collegeskier

I voted no. But I guess I could say to some forms. Taxing all bikes and riders is a bad idea. We all are thinking of this from our stance, but think about all the people you see riding as their main form of transportation cause that is all they can afford and they are riding a 20 year old murray that weighs more then everyones entire collection of bikes. But honestly an extra 1% on preminum bikes sales tax would not burn me especailly if they put the money towards Biking and bike safety. But if the government taxes you special I would expect much better police response and consideration to bike issues, including pulling people over and just explaining the rules of the road. But taxing all users discourages a very good form of transportation that is helping the world a ton and a lot of people out too. Plus think of how much the non obese riders are saving the government in medicare later on.

Juha

I voted "and now for something completely different". I don't own a car, but nevertheless pay for roads in various taxes. I also pay for other basic infrastructure I may or may not need. I am also all for ramps in public offices providing access for handicapped persons (sorry if the term is not PC) even though I will pay more taxes because of that.

I don't think it is a good idea or even possible to earmark every tax euro so that it will only go towards services I currently use and nothing else. I think with my current contribution to tax pool I am already entitled to request more bike-friendly arrangements in public services, planning and construction.

--J

iceratt

There should be a stiff increase in the gas tax, with much of the extra revenue going to all those people who don't funnel the community's money to repressive, oil producing regimes. These saintly citizens( walkers, bikers, and public transportation users, who tread gently on the Earth), should get credits for free gear and weekly massages. I also voted for"and now something completely different". High five Juha!

IronHorse

Tax cycling?
Yeah that's just what we need: another reason for fat kids to stay indoors with their x-box/playstation/game cube.

Anthony King

Pick up Ivan Illich's Deschooling Society. Chapter 4, under the section titled "False Public Utilities" the chief of which he demonstrates is the highway system.

"the lion's share of this funding is directed toward interstates and other primary roadways where bicycles are generally excluded" hallelujah, brother

"Once we are taxed the man has to recognize us as legitimate road users."
We are already taxed, as pointed out by many above. We aren't recognized. If we were, there would be a section in every state driving test regarding the rights of cyclists to use the roadways. If you sincerely believe the above statement, I suggest you quit your job immediately. You have a promising future career in government.

Chris L

Alright, once more. As others have already said, the fact is, cyclists are already taxed. You don't seriously believe "rego fees" or petrol "taxes" even come close to paying for the current road network do you? As far as recognition as legitimate road users goes (beyond the current recognition within the law, which is all I want), that will only come with increased numbers of cyclists -- something that I don't think will happen with an extra tax.

Why not? Paying a tax won't prevent anybody from lying. You seen any politician's speeches lately? Johnny law can dismiss whomever they like, and the only form of payment that's going to change that is a bribe.

I thought that right came with democracy, and I've seen no evidence that I don't already have this right as it is. Of course, having anything done about it is a different matter, but as you'll see below, taxes have nothing to do with that either.

I didn't think you were that naive, perhaps I was wrong. Don't think for one second that paying taxes suddenly makes your vote worth more at the next elections. Conversely, if we had 10 times the numbers we do now, politicians would have to listen to us or face being voted out of office. These people have no reason to be concerned about revenue. Recent experience here in Australia shows that they can just sell off some public enterprise if they need to balance the books up to the next election. It's not about revenue, it's about numbers. In a political system based on mob-rule, governments would always be happy to trade revenue for numbers.

And to be honest, I'm not so sure I particularly want to see money spent on bicycle "facilities". I don't use the existing ones as it is because they are dangerous, and dumbed down to the least competent level of cyclist on the basis that they might "feel" safe. The last thing I want is more of them.

And with that quote, you've just provided the answer as to why these taxes will never be imposed given the current popularity level of cycling. The potential revenue base just isn't large enough to cover the administrative costs. It's been looked into in various Australian states, it's been looked into in various US states, and every time it's been rejected for the same old reasons -- just not economically viable.

If you really want this thing to happen, the people you should be contacting are the legislators who won't accept a system that would surely run at a loss, and the electorate who would vote them out if they did. The issue has never been getting cyclists to "pay their share", the issue is getting the rest of the world to subsidise the system that would allow cyclists to "pay their share", and that ain't gonna happen.

Daily Commute

With the exception of licensing riders, all those things currently exist. I pay taxes that go to roads. I pay insurance that covers me while riding. The city mandates bike registration (although it's widely ignored). Other than licensing five-year-old riders, what new do you propose?

drive-thru

That's what I thought of when I read this thread.
Around my neighbourhood a lot of kids ride to school. This not only keeps the roads a little less busy in the mornings and afternoons, but also increases the chances that these kids will commute on a bike once they become adults.
Not only could the kids not afford $100 a year for tax, license etc. but their parents often wouldn't be prepared to pay an extra $100, when they already own a car which they could use for the school-run. People often don't think of the cost of fuel for the school-run over a year, even though the $100 may actually save them money over the cost of petrol (especially in the UK).

AndrewP

Gas taxes should be increased to cover one time costs like registration, insurance, car and parts sales tax etc. Then the motorist would save money by leaving the car in the driveway.

urbanace

According to the book "Car Free Cities" every car on the road in the US is subsidised approximately $3000 per year. I think enough of my taxes already go the the govt.

Hal Hardy

In my area, there aren't enough cyclists to tax and I would guess that the homeless riding donated bikes make up the majority. It's not a lack of population, it's because the car is king.

A couple of years ago, I nearly bought a motorcycle to commute. The hassles of putting it on the road and renewing my lapsed MC license stopped me. I went the bicycle route and never looked back. The freedom from government hoops to jump through played a big part in that decision.

The main reason given to me for the lack of respect for bicycling on the road is that we can't keep up with the speed limit. No amount of taxes or cyclists' rights education will change that attitude.

IronHorse

There's some broken thinking.
I always thought that the speed limit was the maximum speed you could go not the minimum.

Gus Riley

I voted a resounding "NO". I'm already being taxed for road use, etc. I own five vehicles, they are all licensed and insured, therefore I am contributing my share (and more) of the burden.

Hal Hardy

BINGO!!!

The minimum speed for motor vehicles is 15 mph below the posted speed limit. Yes, you can get a ticket for going too slow unless you're limping from a mechanical problem to the nearest spot to get off the road. Motorists can't even tolerate fellow motorists for that interruption in their busy lives.

IronHorse

Not in the rest of the civilised world

MrCjolsen

I've always thought that all vehicles that use roads should pay an annual tax based on the weight of the vehicle times it's wheelbase in feet. Le'ts say, $.02 per pound.

Mazda Miata: $362.97
Hummer H2 SUV: $1301.33
My Trek 1000c: $1.50

manboy

I voted maybe someday, but I think I'd rather give a flat-out "no." I mean, if the roads were for some reason clogged with cyclists, cars had gone by the wayside, and there had to be some way to make sure lives weren't endangered, then maybe we could think about licensing. And if we weren't paying for roads in other ways anyway, maybe we could be taxed more. I don't ever want to have to register my bike, though. The thing is, my bikes are constantly changing. Would I have to re-register every time I build up a new ride? What about the fun of finding a dumpster bike, tinkering, and giving a friend a free bike? Or choppers? What if I want to run brakeless?

Yarr! Pirate bikes!

(And if the roads fall apart, I'll get wide tires.)

webist

That is a stunning figure! It represents a third of the price of a low-end LBS bike. A similar levy on my car would be about $6000 per year!

The argument in favor of buying our way to respect is counterintuitive. A more resoned approach would be a tax to discourage vehicle use where the money would be spent on alternatives like cycling facilities. I don't favor this approach either since the "revenue stream" would simply be that and no more.

Generally levies like those proposed here are applied based on vehicle value or weight. In that case $3 annually for a bicycle more likely would apply. In no way would that cover the cost of administration.

I suppose some logic might apply to the idea of training, testing and lisencing of the operator of a bicycle. Right now we have different classes of vehicle lisencing - commercial, cheufer, motorcycle, etc. Maybe, just maybe, a case could be made for at least a one time testing event for bikes.

I certainly hope no government officials in any jurisdiction is reading a suggestion in this forum that cyclists are ready to pay $100 per year in order to legitimize their existence.

supcom

Pedestrians pay no taxes or insurance for their feet yet have sidewalks, crosswalks, separate crossing lights, etc.

Now let's look at tax revenue. Since this whole argument seems to be based on paying for facilities with tax revenue, let's see how much revenue we could presumably generate. Assuming we are only taxing adult cyclists, there are about 35 million cyclists who ride 6 times a year, or more. Lets assume that half of these actually ride enough to agree to pay the tax. This is arbitrary, but I don't think an occaisional rider will register. That gives us 17.5 million tax payers. How much can we tax them? Realistically, if we tax them more than $10 a year, you would have a revolt. That gives you $175 million nationwide. The average state would collect a paltry $35 million. Since we only collect $10/cyclist, half of that is going to be wasted on the cost of collecting the tax, record keeping, registration stickers, mailings, etc. bringing us back down to $17.5 million per state for road projects. That's peanuts and probably less than the average state is already spending on cyling related road work.

Insurance for what? The only required auto insurance in my state is liability to protect other people and property from damages I cause with my auto. In all but rare cases, the damage caused by a cyclist is limited primarily to the cyclist and the bicycle. Even then, I expect the typical homeowners/renters liability coverage would take include damages to someone elses car or person.