Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

If a bike is a vehicle, should they be treated like a vehicle?

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

If a bike is a vehicle, should they be treated like a vehicle?

Old 09-08-12, 03:34 AM
  #1  
Myosmith
Lover of Old Chrome Moly
Thread Starter
 
Myosmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NW Minnesota
Posts: 2,949
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 20 Times in 15 Posts
If a bike is a vehicle, should they be treated like a vehicle?

Got into a discussion with another individual (a non-cyclist but not a cycle hater) about a bicycle being defined as a vehicle under state law. His viewpoint was that if bicycles are a "vehicle" they should be treated as such and required to pay for and display a license tag with the fees going to road maintenance and law enforcement, the same as any other passenger vehicle or even trailers in this state. Boats are required to have a license to use public waterways. Even human or wind powered canoes, kayaks, and sailboat/sailboards pay a $10.50 fee + a $5.00 invasive species surcharge. As license fees here are based on value, weight, and carrying capacity, the cycle license fees would be minimal. We guessed at between $10 and $15 a year for argument's sake. The fee would not apply to bicycles used exclusively offroad or on MUPs but if you were going to ride in traffic, you would need to display a valid license tag. The $500 trailer that I haul yard waste in is licensed, inspected, and has a title, why not my bicycle? Roadways are primarily paid for by license fees and gasoline taxes (a smaller portion comes from other sources like property and sales taxes), so why do we get to Share The Road while not contributing proportionately to their construction and maintenance? I pointed out that some cities register bicycles, but had to admit that it is not consistently enforced and it isn't statewide.

Point #2
As the operator of a "vehicle" on a public roadway, the rider would also need a notation on their driver's license or state ID that they had passed a bicycle safety and operations course including an in the saddle test just as drivers and motorcycle riders do. The license could be revolked in the same manner as a drivers license for similar infractions.

Point #3
Cyclists should be cited and fined in the same manner as the operator of a motor vehicle for speeding, failure to obey traffic signs and signals, illegal lane changes, etc. Actually this is already the law, it is just poorly enforced. Why does a drunken cyclist get a public intoxication citation while someone on a motorized scooter (which has a license tag, btw) get a DUI if they are both "vehicles"? I've never heard of a cyclist being pulled over and ticketed unless they caused an accident.

I'll admit that I had difficulty finding valid arguments against these points. What say you?

Last edited by Myosmith; 09-08-12 at 04:01 AM.
Myosmith is offline  
Old 09-08-12, 05:13 AM
  #2  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 28,365

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked 437 Times in 278 Posts
What makes you think the individual with whom you were having a discussion with was NOT a "cycle hater?" The obvious answers to all these questions have been discussed on this list many dozens of times, but these questions keep getting asked repeatedly "for argument's sake" by cycle haters.

FYI, a bicycle is NOT a MOTOR vehicle.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 09-08-12, 06:09 AM
  #3  
PedalingFool
Senior Member
 
PedalingFool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Capac, MI
Posts: 355

Bikes: Trek 1.2, Trek Mtn, Specialized Gravel, Jamis TT, Specialized FatBoy

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
If cyclists started doing all that then the "haters" would still be hating. They aren't just going to be like "oh he paid his tabs and stuff so I won't get mad at him for making me slow down for 10 seconds."
PedalingFool is offline  
Old 09-08-12, 07:34 AM
  #4  
dynodonn 
Banned.
 
dynodonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: U.S. of A.
Posts: 7,464
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1253 Post(s)
Liked 28 Times in 26 Posts
Here's an interesting article that might help answer the OP's question.


https://grist.org/article/2010-09-27-...uld-be-unfair/


"There are many reasons for cities to encourage bicycling, and the economic argument is one of the best. Every time somebody gets on a bicycle instead of in a car, the city saves money. The cost of road maintenance is averaged at 5.6 cents per mile per motor vehicle."
dynodonn is offline  
Old 09-08-12, 08:28 AM
  #5  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,642

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9228 Post(s)
Liked 1,518 Times in 1,038 Posts
And in some states a bicycle is not a vehicle...

In California it is a human powered device.

Bicycle
231. A bicycle is a device upon which any person may ride, propelled exclusively by human power through a belt, chain, or gears, and having one or more wheels. Persons riding bicycles are subject to the provisions of this code specified in Sections 21200 and 21200.5.
genec is offline  
Old 09-08-12, 08:56 AM
  #6  
irwin7638
Senior Member
 
irwin7638's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalamazoo, Mi.
Posts: 3,028

Bikes: Byron,Sam, The Hunq and that Old Guy, Soma Buena Vista, Giant Talon 2

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post

FYI, a bicycle is NOT a MOTOR vehicle.
That is the key point. Most states have a registration requirement for motor vehicles,
" In Michigan, motor vehicles, trailer coaches, trailers weighing 2,500 pounds or more empty, off-road vehicles, pickup campers, and watercraft 20 feet and over or with a permanently affixed engine must be titled."

Although I can't fault the logic of the argument, the fees would be miniscule and useless if properly prorated to reflect the wear and tear on the infrastructure. Also, cyclists represent much less public risk to life and limb than any motor vehicle I can think of, consequently any fines or penalties for misuse should also be adjusted to reflect that.

Marc
irwin7638 is offline  
Old 09-08-12, 09:19 AM
  #7  
Chief
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 379

Bikes: SR, Bianchi, Raleigh, Bertin, Kona, Schwinn, Eisentraut, Zunow, Columbine, Naked, Nishiki, Phillips, Specialized, Giant

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Myosmith View Post
Got into a discussion with another individual (a non-cyclist but not a cycle hater) about a bicycle being defined as a vehicle under state law. His viewpoint was that if bicycles are a "vehicle" they should be treated as such and required to pay for and display a license tag with the fees going to road maintenance and law enforcement, the same as any other passenger vehicle or even trailers in this state. Boats are required to have a license to use public waterways. Even human or wind powered canoes, kayaks, and sailboat/sailboards pay a $10.50 fee + a $5.00 invasive species surcharge. As license fees here are based on value, weight, and carrying capacity, the cycle license fees would be minimal. We guessed at between $10 and $15 a year for argument's sake. The fee would not apply to bicycles used exclusively offroad or on MUPs but if you were going to ride in traffic, you would need to display a valid license tag. The $500 trailer that I haul yard waste in is licensed, inspected, and has a title, why not my bicycle? Roadways are primarily paid for by license fees and gasoline taxes (a smaller portion comes from other sources like property and sales taxes), so why do we get to Share The Road while not contributing proportionately to their construction and maintenance? I pointed out that some cities register bicycles, but had to admit that it is not consistently enforced and it isn't statewide.

Point #2
As the operator of a "vehicle" on a public roadway, the rider would also need a notation on their driver's license or state ID that they had passed a bicycle safety and operations course including an in the saddle test just as drivers and motorcycle riders do. The license could be revolked in the same manner as a drivers license for similar infractions.

Point #3
Cyclists should be cited and fined in the same manner as the operator of a motor vehicle for speeding, failure to obey traffic signs and signals, illegal lane changes, etc. Actually this is already the law, it is just poorly enforced. Why does a drunken cyclist get a public intoxication citation while someone on a motorized scooter (which has a license tag, btw) get a DUI if they are both "vehicles"? I've never heard of a cyclist being pulled over and ticketed unless they caused an accident.

I'll admit that I had difficulty finding valid arguments against these points. What say you?
So you can't find any down-side to the concept of government control, taxation, and restrictions on the freedom to travel under human power on public roadways?
Chief is offline  
Old 09-08-12, 09:27 AM
  #8  
1nterceptor
LET'S ROLL
 
1nterceptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NEW YORK, NY - USA
Posts: 4,779

Bikes: 2014 BMC Gran Fondo, 2013 Brompton S6L-X

Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 305 Post(s)
Liked 37 Times in 27 Posts
https://www.uspirg.org/reports/usf/do...pay-themselves

"Highways do not – and, except for brief periods in our nation’s history, never have – paid for themselves through the taxes that highway advocates label “user fees.” Yet highway advocates continue to suggest they do in an attempt to secure preferential access to scarce public resources and to shape how those resources are spent."
1nterceptor is offline  
Old 09-08-12, 09:30 AM
  #9  
DGoeder
Oh, my brake was on.
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 88

Bikes: 1996(?) Mongoose Omega, 2012 Gravity Pro20

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
What is the cause of this discussion? Is it just that some people feel guilty that they get a perceived "exemption" and somehow that's a bad thing?
DGoeder is offline  
Old 09-08-12, 09:43 AM
  #10  
contango 
2 Fat 2 Furious
 
contango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Posts: 3,996

Bikes: 2009 Specialized Rockhopper Comp Disc, 2009 Specialized Tricross Sport RIP

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Myosmith View Post
Got into a discussion with another individual (a non-cyclist but not a cycle hater) about a bicycle being defined as a vehicle under state law. His viewpoint was that if bicycles are a "vehicle" they should be treated as such and required to pay for and display a license tag with the fees going to road maintenance and law enforcement, the same as any other passenger vehicle or even trailers in this state. Boats are required to have a license to use public waterways. Even human or wind powered canoes, kayaks, and sailboat/sailboards pay a $10.50 fee + a $5.00 invasive species surcharge. As license fees here are based on value, weight, and carrying capacity, the cycle license fees would be minimal. We guessed at between $10 and $15 a year for argument's sake. The fee would not apply to bicycles used exclusively offroad or on MUPs but if you were going to ride in traffic, you would need to display a valid license tag. The $500 trailer that I haul yard waste in is licensed, inspected, and has a title, why not my bicycle? Roadways are primarily paid for by license fees and gasoline taxes (a smaller portion comes from other sources like property and sales taxes), so why do we get to Share The Road while not contributing proportionately to their construction and maintenance? I pointed out that some cities register bicycles, but had to admit that it is not consistently enforced and it isn't statewide.
Impractical to implement and impossible to enforce.

Firstly if bicycles were required to bear a tag, some kind of registration number, it would have to go somewhere. It would either be large enough to read, in which case it would be large enough to snag on all sorts of things and break off or large enough to cause wind drag and break off, or small enough that it wouldn't cause drag in which case it would be too small to read. If it is too small to read it cannot serve any useful purpose.

A bicycle can be anything from an individual's preferred mode of transport to a child's toy. If all bicycles had to bear a tag that would affect 3-year-old Josie on her bright pink bike. If children were exempt the police trying to enforce the law would have to be able to determine, potentially with no documentation, whether a cyclist was young enough to be exempted or old enough to require documents.

Expecting vehicles to contribute to the roads reflects the wear they cause to the roads. Calculating the wear a cyclist actually causes to the roads would probably result in a number so small that it would cost more to manage a charging scheme than it would generate.

Point #2
As the operator of a "vehicle" on a public roadway, the rider would also need a notation on their driver's license or state ID that they had passed a bicycle safety and operations course including an in the saddle test just as drivers and motorcycle riders do. The license could be revolked in the same manner as a drivers license for similar infractions.
This boils down to whether you believe we shouldn't be allowed to do anything without a piece of paper saying we've passed a government sanctioned test to prove we can do it safely.

When driving a car, SUV, truck, whatever, a mistake can cause serious injury or death to others. When riding a bicycle the chances of causing injury or death to other road users is minimal.

Point #3
Cyclists should be cited and fined in the same manner as the operator of a motor vehicle for speeding, failure to obey traffic signs and signals, illegal lane changes, etc. Actually this is already the law, it is just poorly enforced. Why does a drunken cyclist get a public intoxication citation while someone on a motorized scooter (which has a license tag, btw) get a DUI if they are both "vehicles"? I've never heard of a cyclist being pulled over and ticketed unless they caused an accident.

I'll admit that I had difficulty finding valid arguments against these points. What say you?
As for "point" #2, if laws are enforced using a sense of pragmatism rather than dogmatism there's no need to punish cyclists for most things considered infractions. If law enforcement looks at the purpose for the law rather than a blind sense of "you broke the law, here's your fine" many reasons for fining a cyclist disappear.

A cyclist running a red light in busy traffic may endanger other road users if people with priority are forced into evasive action to avoid them. A cyclist riding while drunk is probably a danger only to themselves.

When the police appear to struggle to enforce the existing laws relating to motor vehicles it seems they have bigger fish to fry than cyclists in the wrong lane or a very rare case of a cyclist breaking the speed limit.
__________________
"For a list of ways technology has failed to improve quality of life, press three"
contango is offline  
Old 09-08-12, 09:51 AM
  #11  
wphamilton
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,119

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2831 Post(s)
Liked 230 Times in 155 Posts
Originally Posted by Myosmith View Post
... I'll admit that I had difficulty finding valid arguments against these points. What say you?
They are good points, and another is that license tags would facilitate traffic law enforcement.

Since they are all good arguments, this idea comes up from time to time and is occasionally implemented. The problem is that it never works. The cost to implement is more than the revenues warrant. General enforcement is almost impossible - look at all the bikes hanging unused in all those garages, what do you do with them? What would you do with all those kids on $80 department store bikes, exempt them? What happens when half or two thirds of the cyclists refuse to comply? And then the local law enforcement, having enough to do already tends not to enforce and never "run" the license tags of cyclists anyway so in practice there is little advantage there. It never works.
wphamilton is offline  
Old 09-08-12, 11:50 AM
  #12  
hotbike
Senior Member
 
hotbike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 3,384

Bikes: a lowrider BMX, a mountain bike, a faired recumbent, and a loaded touring bike

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 166 Post(s)
Liked 28 Times in 25 Posts
I'm surprised this thread has not been moved to the "Vehicular Cycling" Forum.

My own opinion is not shared by many. I believe a "Human Powered Vehicle" is more or less a Velomobile, with headlight and tail lights, a rear view mirror, and some Fairing material for crash protection.

I always ride with a Reflective Triangle, and I consider my Bike a "Slow Moving Vehicle", and I acknowledge the fact that I can't always go as fast as a car, and I often pull over to let traffic go by.

I believe a Velomobile is a Vehicle, but not all bicycles are vehicles.
hotbike is offline  
Old 09-08-12, 11:53 AM
  #13  
Daves_Not_Here
On your right
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Southern California
Posts: 735

Bikes: Specialized Roubaix Elite

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Myosmith View Post

Point #1
... If bicycles are vehicles, they should be licensed and subject to fees <my paraphrase>...

Point #2
... the rider would also need a notation on their driver's license or state ID that they had passed a bicycle safety and operations course ...

Point #3
... I've never heard of a cyclist being pulled over and ticketed unless they caused an accident.

I'll admit that I had difficulty finding valid arguments against these points. What say you?
I'll take a stab:

1. Different vehicles are subject to different fees, licensing requirements and laws based on their potential impact on infrastructure and the safety of others. An oil tanker is treated differently than a canoe. An 18-wheeler is subject to higher fees, training requirements, and driving restrictions than a car. A bicycle has a negligible impact on road wear and poses almost no risk to other vehicles. On the contrary, every time someone takes a bike instead of a car, society benefits -- I think cyclists should receive a rebates and discounts from the DMV fees they pay for their other vehicles.

2. Different vehicles are already subject to different training requirements. Why should a cyclist be required to take a safety course, when bicycles pose almost no risk to others? (assuming no sidewalk riding)

3. Cyclists get more lenient treatment by law enforcement because they pose little risk to others.

The most important argument: your friend is suggesting schemes that involve more fees paid to government, and more government involvement in our personal affairs (!?!) We're not Greece yet, but it's not for a lack of people like your friend trying. Please reassure us that you forceably held him down and washed his mouth out with soap after he uttered these vulgar obscenities.
Daves_Not_Here is offline  
Old 09-08-12, 12:11 PM
  #14  
rekmeyata
Senior Member
 
rekmeyata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,355
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 575 Post(s)
Liked 20 Times in 18 Posts
This is a huge controversy. Personally, and this is just an opinion that could be right or wrong, but I think we should be treated as a vehicle, after all we are suppose to follow the rules of the road just as a vehicle has too. And in that pursuit then we should be charged a registration fee too, and I know that's a problem with a lot of cyclists including me! But here's my thoughts on the fee. First it would be a one time fee that is charged at purchase time of about 5% of the purchase price of all bikes except children's bikes. This fee would register your bike and do two things, help id your bike in case of theft, and pay for cycling infrastructural improvements. I would be all for this the funds generated from the fees would be used for that purpose. BUT, the reason I would be against it is because I know that if a state or maybe the feds needs money for some other unrelated project and can't find it, then see's it has millions of dollars in funds for cycling infrastructure the state, or maybe even the feds would steal the money to fund a different project with.
rekmeyata is offline  
Old 09-08-12, 12:34 PM
  #15  
adamhenry
MUP World Champ
 
adamhenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 419

Bikes: '19 Trance 3, '17 Defy Adv 2, DK Legend, Electra Verse 21D

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 32 Times in 23 Posts
Originally Posted by rekmeyata View Post
This fee would register your bike and do two things, help id your bike in case of theft, and pay for cycling infrastructural improvements.
That would never work in the state of CA. The thieves in the state capital would steal any funds generated to pay for things completely unrelated to cycling. We paid to register our off-road vehicles to pay for off-road parks. The money was stolen and will never be returned.
adamhenry is offline  
Old 09-08-12, 01:49 PM
  #16  
Looigi
Senior Member
 
Looigi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,950
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts
FWIW: Vehicle:

1: an inert medium (as a syrup) in which a medicinally active agent is administered. any of various media acting usually as solvents, carriers, or binders for active ingredients or pigments
2 : an agent of transmission
3: a medium through which something is expressed, achieved, or displayed <an investment vehicle>; especially : a work created especially to display the talents of a particular performer
4: a means of carrying or transporting something <planes, trains, and other vehicles>. a piece of mechanized equipment

So a bike would qualify as a vehicle under 4, and this forum would qualify as a vehicle under 3.

Be that as it may, I think registering bike to mitigate bike theft is a red herring, and taxing them help pay for roads, certainly if taxed in proportion to the wear and tear they cause. However, I wonder if registering bikes and perhaps making them have license plates might be worthwhile if it forces the motoring public to be more accepting of bicycles on the road. Inconvenienced motorist mumbling to himself, "Damn bikers. What a pain in the azz. Oh well, I guess he paid his fees and has a right to be here, but it's still a pain. grumble grumble." As apposed to now where the common assumption is you have no right to be there.
Looigi is offline  
Old 09-08-12, 03:06 PM
  #17  
Myosmith
Lover of Old Chrome Moly
Thread Starter
 
Myosmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NW Minnesota
Posts: 2,949
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 20 Times in 15 Posts
What makes you think the individual with whom you were having a discussion with was NOT a "cycle hater?"
Because he is one of the biggest advocates of public safety I know and has been supportive of my cycling and cyling in general. I've known him for years and traveled with him many times and have never heard him utter a negative comment about cyclists or sharing the road with them. What actually got the whole conversation started was my *****ing about salmon in the bike lane.

So you can't find any down-side to the concept of government control, taxation, and restrictions on the freedom to travel under human power on public roadways?
I've got huge problems with how our government is currently being run, way more than I care to get into here. But remember that if it wasn't for taxation and government involvement there would be no public roadways with the possible exeption of dirt trails. The discussion was "If a bicycle is considered a vehicle should it be licensed as a vehicle?". The government already controls and restricts human powered travel on public roadways, there was no mention of new laws restricting your travel by bicycle.

A cyclist riding while drunk is probably a danger only to themselves.
Sorry to pick out this one quote as the theme appeared several times in this thread. True that a cyclist poses less risk than even the smallest car on the road they do pose a risk to other cyclists, pedestrians, motorcycles, and even motorists if (as pointed out above) someone has to slam on the brakes or take evasive action to avoid hitting a cyclist who is intoxicated, blowing through a stop sign, or just riding with his/her head up their backside.
Myosmith is offline  
Old 09-08-12, 03:45 PM
  #18  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 28,365

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked 437 Times in 278 Posts
Originally Posted by Myosmith View Post
What actually got the whole conversation started was my *****ing about salmon in the bike lane.
OK, got it. YOU are the cyclist hater, at least the cyclists who are not as upstanding and blessed like yourself, and you would like to license, tax, or register them off of your bike lanes and roads. Iz dat it?

Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 09-08-12 at 03:49 PM.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 09-08-12, 04:19 PM
  #19  
dpeters11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 477

Bikes: 2010 Trek FX 7.5, 2011 Trek 2.1

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Registration is actually required in Milwaukee. Now, there is no fee and the registration is good for as long as that owner owns the bike, but there is a sticker involved.
dpeters11 is offline  
Old 09-08-12, 04:34 PM
  #20  
atbman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Leeds UK
Posts: 2,084
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Read https://www.toronto.ca/budget2005/pdf...censingcyc.PDF for a comprehensive debunking of the arguments your friend put forward
atbman is offline  
Old 09-08-12, 04:43 PM
  #21  
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Myosmith View Post
Got into a discussion with another individual (a non-cyclist but not a cycle hater) about a bicycle being defined as a vehicle under state law. His viewpoint was that if bicycles are a "vehicle" they should be treated as such and required to pay for and display a license tag with the fees going to road maintenance and law enforcement, the same as any other passenger vehicle or even trailers in this state. Boats are required to have a license to use public waterways. Even human or wind powered canoes, kayaks, and sailboat/sailboards pay a $10.50 fee + a $5.00 invasive species surcharge. As license fees here are based on value, weight, and carrying capacity, the cycle license fees would be minimal. We guessed at between $10 and $15 a year for argument's sake. The fee would not apply to bicycles used exclusively offroad or on MUPs but if you were going to ride in traffic, you would need to display a valid license tag. The $500 trailer that I haul yard waste in is licensed, inspected, and has a title, why not my bicycle? Roadways are primarily paid for by license fees and gasoline taxes (a smaller portion comes from other sources like property and sales taxes), so why do we get to Share The Road while not contributing proportionately to their construction and maintenance? I pointed out that some cities register bicycles, but had to admit that it is not consistently enforced and it isn't statewide.

Point #2
As the operator of a "vehicle" on a public roadway, the rider would also need a notation on their driver's license or state ID that they had passed a bicycle safety and operations course including an in the saddle test just as drivers and motorcycle riders do. The license could be revolked in the same manner as a drivers license for similar infractions.

Point #3
Cyclists should be cited and fined in the same manner as the operator of a motor vehicle for speeding, failure to obey traffic signs and signals, illegal lane changes, etc. Actually this is already the law, it is just poorly enforced. Why does a drunken cyclist get a public intoxication citation while someone on a motorized scooter (which has a license tag, btw) get a DUI if they are both "vehicles"? I've never heard of a cyclist being pulled over and ticketed unless they caused an accident.

I'll admit that I had difficulty finding valid arguments against these points. What say you?
So the issue is whether bicycles should be treated as vehicles? Well, they are. All the arguments so far discussed refer to how government and society treat motor vehicles, not vehicles in general.
John Forester is offline  
Old 09-08-12, 04:51 PM
  #22  
contango 
2 Fat 2 Furious
 
contango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Posts: 3,996

Bikes: 2009 Specialized Rockhopper Comp Disc, 2009 Specialized Tricross Sport RIP

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Looigi View Post
However, I wonder if registering bikes and perhaps making them have license plates might be worthwhile if it forces the motoring public to be more accepting of bicycles on the road. Inconvenienced motorist mumbling to himself, "Damn bikers. What a pain in the azz. Oh well, I guess he paid his fees and has a right to be here, but it's still a pain. grumble grumble." As apposed to now where the common assumption is you have no right to be there.
Can't see that one happening. If Driver A paid vastly more in fees for their monstrous great pickup than Cyclist B paid for their bicycle the argument would just shift from "you don't even pay for the roads, get out of my way" to "you pay such a pittance, I pay more, so get out of my way".

Charging cyclists a few bucks a year to use the roads isn't going to make the rednecks hate any less.
__________________
"For a list of ways technology has failed to improve quality of life, press three"
contango is offline  
Old 09-08-12, 04:51 PM
  #23  
B. Carfree
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 7,048
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by 1nterceptor View Post
https://www.uspirg.org/reports/usf/do...pay-themselves

"Highways do not – and, except for brief periods in our nation’s history, never have – paid for themselves through the taxes that highway advocates label “user fees.” Yet highway advocates continue to suggest they do in an attempt to secure preferential access to scarce public resources and to shape how those resources are spent."
This just can't be pointed out enough. Thank you. Here's another version of this fact from Jim Soulby, the president of the Colorado Rail Passenger Association:
In just the last 40 years, highways have received about 3.6 trillion dollars in public funds, about half of which was not covered by fuel taxes and tolls...
And that doesn't even consider the added subsidies to keep the oil shipping lanes open, invade and occupy oil-producing nations and maintain an enormous military to keep the threat of such invasions credible. And don't forget the medical costs of our 1.2 million annual car-caused injuries and however many cases of cancer, stroke, heart attack and diabetes are laid at the foot of the car-centered infrastructure we have built with all those subsidies.

I wonder what our nation would look, smell and sound like if we did treat bicycles the same way we treat motor vehicles. I think I could learn to love all the well-connected cycle-centric roadways that those trillions of dollars of subsidies could build, and I'm not even a Copenhagenista.
B. Carfree is offline  
Old 09-08-12, 10:30 PM
  #24  
Digital_Cowboy
Senior Member
 
Digital_Cowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tampa/St. Pete, Florida
Posts: 9,352

Bikes: Specialized Hardrock Mountain (Stolen); Giant Seek 2 (Stolen); Diamondback Ascent mid 1980 - 1997

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Myosmith View Post
Got into a discussion with another individual (a non-cyclist but not a cycle hater) about a bicycle being defined as a vehicle under state law. His viewpoint was that if bicycles are a "vehicle" they should be treated as such and required to pay for and display a license tag with the fees going to road maintenance and law enforcement, the same as any other passenger vehicle or even trailers in this state. Boats are required to have a license to use public waterways. Even human or wind powered canoes, kayaks, and sailboat/sailboards pay a $10.50 fee + a $5.00 invasive species surcharge. As license fees here are based on value, weight, and carrying capacity, the cycle license fees would be minimal. We guessed at between $10 and $15 a year for argument's sake. The fee would not apply to bicycles used exclusively offroad or on MUPs but if you were going to ride in traffic, you would need to display a valid license tag. The $500 trailer that I haul yard waste in is licensed, inspected, and has a title, why not my bicycle? Roadways are primarily paid for by license fees and gasoline taxes (a smaller portion comes from other sources like property and sales taxes), so why do we get to Share The Road while not contributing proportionately to their construction and maintenance? I pointed out that some cities register bicycles, but had to admit that it is not consistently enforced and it isn't statewide.

Point #2
As the operator of a "vehicle" on a public roadway, the rider would also need a notation on their driver's license or state ID that they had passed a bicycle safety and operations course including an in the saddle test just as drivers and motorcycle riders do. The license could be revolked in the same manner as a drivers license for similar infractions.

Point #3
Cyclists should be cited and fined in the same manner as the operator of a motor vehicle for speeding, failure to obey traffic signs and signals, illegal lane changes, etc. Actually this is already the law, it is just poorly enforced. Why does a drunken cyclist get a public intoxication citation while someone on a motorized scooter (which has a license tag, btw) get a DUI if they are both "vehicles"? I've never heard of a cyclist being pulled over and ticketed unless they caused an accident.

I'll admit that I had difficulty finding valid arguments against these points. What say you?
I think that you have it backwards. If I'm not mistaken, the fees you speak of primarily support the interstate system. Roads that by and large cyclists are banned from using. The local surface roads that we use are paid for out of the general fund. Which comes from income tax, property tax, and sales tax. Taxes that we all pay.

Even if they were funded out of the fees that you seem to think that they're funded from. Guess, what even those of us who don't drive, still indirectly pay those fees. As the various companies that we do business with pass those costs onto us the consumer.
Digital_Cowboy is offline  
Old 09-08-12, 10:31 PM
  #25  
RobertHurst
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 12 Posts
Originally Posted by Myosmith View Post
Got into a discussion with another individual (a non-cyclist but not a cycle hater) about a bicycle being defined as a vehicle under state law. His viewpoint was that if bicycles are a "vehicle" they should be treated as such and required to pay for and display a license tag with the fees going to road maintenance and law enforcement, the same as any other passenger vehicle or even trailers in this state. Boats are required to have a license to use public waterways. Even human or wind powered canoes, kayaks, and sailboat/sailboards pay a $10.50 fee + a $5.00 invasive species surcharge. As license fees here are based on value, weight, and carrying capacity, the cycle license fees would be minimal. We guessed at between $10 and $15 a year for argument's sake. The fee would not apply to bicycles used exclusively offroad or on MUPs but if you were going to ride in traffic, you would need to display a valid license tag. The $500 trailer that I haul yard waste in is licensed, inspected, and has a title, why not my bicycle? Roadways are primarily paid for by license fees and gasoline taxes (a smaller portion comes from other sources like property and sales taxes), so why do we get to Share The Road while not contributing proportionately to their construction and maintenance? I pointed out that some cities register bicycles, but had to admit that it is not consistently enforced and it isn't statewide.

Point #2
As the operator of a "vehicle" on a public roadway, the rider would also need a notation on their driver's license or state ID that they had passed a bicycle safety and operations course including an in the saddle test just as drivers and motorcycle riders do. The license could be revolked in the same manner as a drivers license for similar infractions.

Point #3
Cyclists should be cited and fined in the same manner as the operator of a motor vehicle for speeding, failure to obey traffic signs and signals, illegal lane changes, etc. Actually this is already the law, it is just poorly enforced. Why does a drunken cyclist get a public intoxication citation while someone on a motorized scooter (which has a license tag, btw) get a DUI if they are both "vehicles"? I've never heard of a cyclist being pulled over and ticketed unless they caused an accident.

I'll admit that I had difficulty finding valid arguments against these points. What say you?
Tell your friend that bicyclists subsidize automobile drivers, not the other way around.
RobertHurst is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.