|
Originally Posted by calamarichris
(Post 10931227)
Thanks for your puh-liteness. That's such a rare virtue in internet conversations these days.
I never said licensing would be effective, but that won't stop a frustrated electorate from making it a reality. Puh-lease try to remain focused on the issue at hand instead of engaging in emotional tirades. |
Originally Posted by Crank Turner
(Post 10931551)
When they start regulating bicycles, I'm going to start an outlaw bicycle gang.:p
|
When bicycles are the primary users of the roadways, perhaps we need to talk about licensing and other sources of revenue. Till then it is and always has been an idiot's knee-jerk attempt at a money grab that always turns out to cost more than it generates and impossible to effectively enforce.
|
The main value of bicycle licensing is not to restrict unsafe habits, it would be to reduce theft.
If all bicycles ridden on the street were required to carry license plates, and if the police were allowed to stop bicycles without license plates just for that reason--and the license plates had to be renewed each year at the motor vehicle office where they would check the serial number of the bicycle, then that would DRASTICALLY lower the value of stolen bicycles. A stolen bicycle would be effectively useless, and if a stolen bicycle was recovered, there would be a current owner listed that the police could contact. As it stands now, there is effectively no penalty for using a stolen bicycle. Unless the thief is dumb enough to stay in the same neighborhood or doesn't bother to spray-paint the thing, it's highly unlikely that the original owner can ever track down a stolen bicycle. ------ Licensing bicycles is not so much a matter of restricting ownership, because if you wanted to remove unsafe riders from the street--then you would license riders, and not the bicycles. But you see--only licensing the bicycle riders wouldn't do anything to prevent bicycle theft. I expect it will come to pass (in the USA) but I don't know when. When license plates for cars first were enacted, it was seen as a huge offense to civil society--but nowadays everyone expects it--because theft and accidents would be WAY higher without it. ~ |
If it were theft purposes...I'd be willing to pay alot more to register a bike and have it lo-jacked with a pet type chip, IR tag, or even GPS. But then we just create a subculture of bike chop shops.
|
Originally Posted by Doug5150
(Post 10935616)
The main value of bicycle licensing is not to restrict unsafe habits, it would be to reduce theft.
If all bicycles ridden on the street were required to carry license plates, and if the police were allowed to stop bicycles without license plates just for that reason--and the license plates had to be renewed each year at the motor vehicle office where they would check the serial number of the bicycle, then that would DRASTICALLY lower the value of stolen bicycles. A stolen bicycle would be effectively useless, and if a stolen bicycle was recovered, there would be a current owner listed that the police could contact. As it stands now, there is effectively no penalty for using a stolen bicycle. Unless the thief is dumb enough to stay in the same neighborhood or doesn't bother to spray-paint the thing, it's highly unlikely that the original owner can ever track down a stolen bicycle. ------ Licensing bicycles is not so much a matter of restricting ownership, because if you wanted to remove unsafe riders from the street--then you would license riders, and not the bicycles. But you see--only licensing the bicycle riders wouldn't do anything to prevent bicycle theft. I expect it will come to pass (in the USA) but I don't know when. When license plates for cars first were enacted, it was seen as a huge offense to civil society--but nowadays everyone expects it--because theft and accidents would be WAY higher without it. ~ What you will find is that people will just strip all the components anyway. You're forgetting how light and portable bicycles are compared to motor vehicles. There isn't need to start an engine or have a truck to haul them which is why bike theft is stealthy. Even the components are a lot lighter and easier to store than motor vehicles and a lot easier and quicker to remove too. They will still be just as easy to steal. |
Originally Posted by Doug5150
(Post 10935616)
The main value of bicycle licensing is not to restrict unsafe habits, it would be to reduce theft.
Been tried, didn't work. The problem is, police aren't interested in returning a bike to its rightful owner; not when it can pull in cash at the next bike auction. Most bikes aren't valuable enough to warrant spending any time on, not when 80% of them are BSOs (Bike-Shaped Objects) from Wally World. |
Originally Posted by TRaffic Jammer
(Post 10935664)
If it were theft purposes...I'd be willing to pay alot more to register a bike and have it lo-jacked with a pet type chip, IR tag, or even GPS. But then we just create a subculture of bike chop shops.
|
Originally Posted by TRaffic Jammer
(Post 10935664)
If it were theft purposes...I'd be willing to pay alot more to register a bike and have it lo-jacked with a pet type chip, IR tag, or even GPS. But then we just create a subculture of bike chop shops.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_kSNVKrktKU...licebikes3.jpg Maybe it's worth it for chipcom to setup his retirement business just to get her to visit! |
Originally Posted by Doug5150
(Post 10935616)
The main value of bicycle licensing is not to restrict unsafe habits, it would be to reduce theft.
Do you really think that police are going to be sitting in thier patrol cars running plates on bicycles? |
Originally Posted by Doug5150
(Post 10935616)
The main value of bicycle licensing is not to restrict unsafe habits, it would be to reduce theft.
If all bicycles ridden on the street were required to carry license plates, and if the police were allowed to stop bicycles without license plates just for that reason--and the license plates had to be renewed each year at the motor vehicle office where they would check the serial number of the bicycle, then that would DRASTICALLY lower the value of stolen bicycles. A stolen bicycle would be effectively useless, and if a stolen bicycle was recovered, there would be a current owner listed that the police could contact. As it stands now, there is effectively no penalty for using a stolen bicycle. Unless the thief is dumb enough to stay in the same neighborhood or doesn't bother to spray-paint the thing, it's highly unlikely that the original owner can ever track down a stolen bicycle. ------ Licensing bicycles is not so much a matter of restricting ownership, because if you wanted to remove unsafe riders from the street--then you would license riders, and not the bicycles. But you see--only licensing the bicycle riders wouldn't do anything to prevent bicycle theft. I expect it will come to pass (in the USA) but I don't know when. When license plates for cars first were enacted, it was seen as a huge offense to civil society--but nowadays everyone expects it--because theft and accidents would be WAY higher without it. ~ Oh great. So now I'd be required to pay whatever inflated registration price they'd come up with for each and every one of my rideable bicycles? The ones that are likely to be stolen (that is, the useful ones) are worth far less than any serious registration program would charge me. And what if they get parted out? What if a frame is damaged and I scavenge a new one for use with the same components, do I have to pay to re-register for the new-old serial number? I'd bet that so many people would skip registration altogether that it wouldn't lower the value of a stolen bicycle by much at all. That said, I don't think licensing would ruin the joy of cycling at all. If (a considerably richer me) bought a completely impractical 500 hp sports car, it wouldn't be the license plate that keeps me from enjoying it's full capabilities on a whim, it's the speed limits and the danger posed on public roads. I can take the most impractical, pure-performance racing bike out on many streets and go "flat out" without causing any trouble. In fact, the only thing I can think of that would ruin that joy forever is if everybody started riding bikes and clogged up the roadways with a slower average speed than mine. So the greatest threats to the various carefree joys of cycling are deterioration of the roads, and too many people on bikes. |
The real problem is that with registration will come an insurance requirement just like for cars. The current bureaucracy connects insurance with registration.
|
I would be fine with having to get a bicycle license which is based on weight and is therefore 1/100th as difficult to get as an automobile license.
|
Originally Posted by gldrgidr
(Post 10962778)
The real problem is that with registration will come an insurance requirement just like for cars. The current bureaucracy connects insurance with registration.
They cannot provide the manpower necessary to enforce the laws that currently on the books and they want to add more?:roflmao2: Just makes it easier for the scofflaws:twitchy: Aaron:) |
Originally Posted by CNY James
(Post 10921516)
The only reason I would care is it seems to me another layer of bureaucracy. It annoys me that gov'ts seem to find more and more ways to charge fees and taxes & regulate what we do. But that's just me. If it was law, I would likely get a license just to avoid the fines for not having one but I wouldn't be thrilled about it. I would sign a petition, write to my legislators, protest, whatever to try to stop the bill before it passed.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:00 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.