URGENT ACTION NEEDED NOW!

Proposed New Hampshire Bill Would Require $50 Annual Bicycle Registration For Every Bike!

A bill pending in the New Hampshire House would create a $50 annual registration fee for every bicycle, including e-bikes.

Public Hearing: Tuesday, January 27 at 11:00 AM, NH Statehouse, Concord NH

What HB1703 Would Do:

• Require annual $50 registration fee for all bicycles, including e-bikes, used on state or municipally funded paths, trails, and roadways
  
• Require proof of ownership or authorization from the owner
  
• Require parental sign-off for riders under 18
  
• Require riders to either display a registration sticker on the bike or carry the registration certificate while riding
  
• Impose a $100 fine for riding an unregistered bicycle
  
• They say they will direct registration fees and penalties toward the creation and maintenance of bicycle routes, lanes, paths, and trails but they can't even estimate the cost to administer the fees or fees expected to be raised
  
• Eliminate municipal authority under RSA 265:149 to require local bicycle registration
  

Why This Bill Is Likely to Advance

The bill is sponsored by the Chair of the House Transportation Committee, which significantly increases the likelihood that it will receive favorable consideration—unless there is strong public opposition.

How to Take Action

You can submit your position on HB1703 by completing the online form (click the link in the button below):

• Select January 27
  
• Choose Transportation Committee
  
• Enter HB1703
  
• Indicate that you oppose the bill
  
• You may also submit written comments or upload testimony - please do!!
  

Link to Online FormOr you can attend the hearing in person:

• Time: 11:00 AM, January 27
  
• Location: Room 234, Granite Place, Concord
  

You may sign up to testify or simply sign in and indicate why this is so bad for riders and the state.

A Few Facts About HB1703

• A family of four with four bikes would pay $200 per year, discouraging parents from buying bikes for their children
  
• Registration fees and penalties would discourage bicycling, undermining public health, quality of life, and tourism
  
• The bill would make New Hampshire far less bike-friendly, harming the state’s tourism economy
  
• It would disproportionately affect people who rely on bicycles as their primary mode of transportation, especially those with limited incomes
  
• The cost of implementing the registration program may exceed the revenue it generates; the fiscal note states that revenues cannot be determined

Live free or die, but don't forget to put that pricey government sticker on your bike.

I'm not necessarily opposed to state government finding ways to collect revenue.....but why this? I didn't see an answer in the op's post.

EDIT: Never mind. The money goes back toward cycling. Kind of like a fishing or hunting license.

If it is like hunting and fishing licenses, will out of staters have to pay for a temporary one?

Well, not really. Hunters and fishing are pretty regulated and there's a strong presence by NH Fish and Game Dept.. during hunting and fishing season, There's not any possibility they will pay attention to cycling, as every road is open to bikes, trails open to mt bikes, kids riding bikes in neighborhoods, multi-use paths, etc..... there's no possibility they would have the personal to monitor cycling the way the do hunting or fishing. I'm unclear who the state legislators think is going to enforce this law ? Not to mention on one hand those responsible for state tourism extolling the wonderful multi-use paths they have and as a "Oh, BTW, you need a registration and license to bike in NH". How's that going to play out ??

An okay idea in theory, but perhaps not so okay an idea in practice. A couple of issues leap to mind of the "law of unintended consequences" variety:

(1) For many, and maybe most, bike owners, how on Earth will they "prove ownership"? Especially those of us who tend toward Classic & Vintage (read: old) bikes? I certainly don't have a sales slip for the 1965ish Cinelli I ride most often. I will guarantee that I am not alone, including folks who bought a bike recently.

(2) And for collectors, the cost of multiple licenses could be idiotically high. For example, a gent in Washington state of my acquaintance has many dozens of fantastic older bikes. I know the New Hampshire law doesn't affect him, but if it passes the idea will spread, and folks like my non-hypothetical example be could looking at five-digit annual registration fees. (Yes, I know it takes 200 bikes to hit the $10,000 per year threshold - trust me, such folks are out there, probably more than you think.) This seems . . . excessive.

Methinks more thought needs to go into this idea.

The only way I see this gets publicized to the non cycling enthusiasts in the state, if it passes, would be through aggressive enforcement. Stopping 15 yr olds and asking for registration and permission. Who gets the $100 ticket? Do they take them to the station and call parents. Local police and rangers are going to be tasked as revenue enforcement. Great way to nurture those relationships with the public.

There are bike paths and rail trails that the state markets for tourism. That’s not going to balance with this.

Personally, with the number of bikes in my family of 4 I’d be looking at something between $500 and $1000 annually depending on whether or not I registered all of mine every yr.

If you live in NH please go on record opposing this.

This thread does beg a question:

As a cyclist, surely you support a network of fabulous cycling infrastructure, right?
And you understand that the money for that has to come from somewhere....
And surely, just like gas taxes, vehicle registrations, tolls, hunting licenses, etc., the users should chip in, right?
Then if you oppose this, what is your solution?

You're assuming that the money wouldn't just disappear into the state's general fund, to be allocated at the legislators' discretion, without regard for the stated purpose of the tax, as is the usual practice.

I feel your concern. However, the text of this particular bill specifically indicates the money goes to a dedicated fund:

​​​​​​All fees shall be collected by the division of motor vehicles and immediately transferred to the commissioner of the department of transportation to be used for the creation and maintenance of bicycle routes, lanes, paths, or trails, pursuant to RSA 230:75, XI.

Bill

RSA 230

My Father-in-law was a salesman. He realized the importance of $19.99. This is the amount of money someone was will to risk on those products hawked by pitchmen on commercials. If New Hampshire kept it to $20, perhaps this would have a better chance of acceptance by the cycling and e-cycling people of the state.

Is $50 the new $20? That is a lot of money, especially for a family that wants to ride a few miles with their kids.

I understand maintaining Multi-use paths take money, and perhaps they did the math and $50 would make it break even or even make it easier to justify keeping up with maintenance, but that is a lot to ask and did they consider that many people that use the paths now, may not pay the $50 for the sticker?

Maybe they should have toll booths or RFID transponders. Just kidding. That is a terrible idea. Highways are partially funded by taxes on fuel which makes sense. As of now, electric vehicles are getting a free pass on that, but I'm sure once our government can settle down and figure things out, they will find a way to get money from them too.

Back to New Hampshire. When I lived there, I rode on a former railroad line going north out of Salem/Windham. It is now a MUP. This was part of a statewide network of Snowmachine trails that extends up to Canada and beyond. These paths were/are maintained by local snowmachine clubs and go all over the state. I think they got money from the state to help with maintenance and patrols since snowmachines are registered, so they may be trying to follow that model. I am unsure about how this worked. Does anyone out there know more about the snowmachine trails? These trails and some of the offshoots from them are excellent for riding in the "off" season.

I will add that where I ride now is all dirt and gravel. It is superior to paved asphalt because when these MUP's are laid down, they don't put a best underlayment of crushed stone down like they would for a road. Since the margins for the trees is narrow, tree roots grow under the path and make it uneven. My preference, based on this would be to level the path, fill in the areas that collect water, use fine gravel where needed and the maintenance costs will be less than a paved path. I ride a lot at Hempstead Lake State Park, there are plenty of cyclist, and pedestrians using the paths. No complaints.

By the way, the idea that the state would devote around 12 million dollars per year (at 50 dollars per person, if around half of the state's present roster of maybe 500,000 bike owners own a single bike each and decide to pay the registration fee) to improvement of bicycle infrastructure, every year, year after year, is ludicrous.

The bill is clearly (and brilliantly) designed to rid the New Hampshire roads of hundreds of thousands of bicycles, conventional and electric, in the guise of promoting safe bicycling in the state.

I have a very good friend who moved his multimillion dollar railroad transportation company from New Jersey to Fla because of taxes. Guess it comes down to what you’re accustomed to.

Yup. I make well into six figures as a public school teacher in NJ and have for years. Teachers in Florida literally make less than half what I make, as the state average appears to be around $55k. Our high school students also have significantly higher SAT scores than many other states', including Florida.

I made my preference known ... and I'm from Massachusetts ... I visit NH frequently with my bike, and I let it be known that my visits and in state spending will be at risk.

Maybe if they offer a reduced tag for older bikes it will stimulate interest in older bikes.

or encourage hoarders to cull the herd?

Subtle perhaps, but the registration is not required unless you ride the bike in certain places - state or municipal owned roads, paths, or trails. Garage queens are exempt because they aren't ridden. Taking kids to ride in a public school parking lot seems technically OK. Doing the same at the back of the mall is fine. Riding around your development and then cutting through an industrial park to get to Dunkin' Donuts is OK. Federal parks are OK. Camps can keep entire fleets for their own property. The bikes on the back of RVs are OK as long as you keep them off the public roads. College commuters may be OK. Walking the bike is always OK as far as I can tell. Crossing a public road may be OK.

creates a new bureaucracy with great paying jobs and bennies for family, friends and supporters...apparently they aren't stealing enough money from property taxes and love the lie of being such a great state because they pay no sales tax...just another way to steal money from the masses...

I disagree with most of this, “state or municipal roads”. In NH there is no land that is not captured by one city/town or another. There is no unclaimed county land. Pretty much every road that is not private is a state or municipal road, unless it’s a US Hwy or Interstate.

This is ridiculous and seems to follow the ludicrous law that just passed in NJ which requires all e-bikes to be licensed, registered and insured. Even pedal assist class 1 e-bikes.

In case anyone in NH is interested, this proposed bill lit up the state server.

13.8k opposed
39 in favor


it died, and the sponsor is babbling all kinds of jibberish backpedaling.

There is an article mentioning XTR's news in today's Valley News (www.vnews.com). It is probably safe to assume that any Granite State BF members are among the 13,800 people who expressed their opposition on the state website.
I think that the argument that bikes don't pay road use fees is weakened by the fact that a bike may be substituting for a car, thus causing much less wear and tear than the car which has already payed.

I don’t want to get into a political discourse here so I won’t do a post mortem. There are a whole bunch of inconsistencies to the stated purpose in the original proposed bill. Very glad this went up in flames.🔥

Pun for the win!

In the past 100 years or so, nobody has figured out a practical way to tax bicycles. Looking way back, Chicago apparently tried a $1 licence fee in 1897, but that didn't work.

As they say, people who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.