Scummer

It's not only weight, but also power. A 20 min. test at threshold and a 5 sec. stomping test needs to be done to determine how much the tar is being shifted during such accelerations.

And that's my $0.02

But in all seriousness, charging for a bicycle is idiotic. The money for bicycle transit can easily be paid by raising the gasoline tax by one lousy cent/gallon.

waterrockets 

Yep, now we're getting down to the point where we should be paid to ride our bikes. Good point.

If I was in a car instead of on a bike, do you think that would be better for traffic? When answering, consider that I drive like a sprinter, and that I ride bike lanes to work and shoulders to train.

fmullegun

Unless we have our own lane, we slow down traffic.

When I am driving if I see a bike in the bike lane or on the shoulder I always slow down. I realize I am in the .0001%

whiplashsmile

I just had this conversation with some anti-bike members of my family. They insist that we don't belong on the road because they pay taxes and that if we paid a registration/excise tax just like them (they conveniently forget that I pay already for a mini van, trail blazer and ATV) that we would be welcomed with open arms on the public roadways.
I tell you it would almost be worth it for me to pay just to make them eat their words. I didn't read the proposed legislation, are any additional rights conveyed by this tax or is it just to make up the shortfall from reducing gas and sales tax revenues?

caloso

Whether I'm on a bike or in a car, I AM traffic.

99% of the time I'm riding my bike on the surface streets and roads of Sacramento County. Since I own a house and do most of my shopping here, my property and sales taxes pay far more than the impact my 21lb bike does on those roads.

bratton

what would the limitations of something like this be? will 10 year old children be pulled over by the fuzz because they lost their registration cards?

dcvelo

There are situations (narrow roads without shoulders) where this may be true, at least for a brief period (and god forbid anyone be delayed 30 seconds). But generally speaking it's nonsense...on most roads cars can easily get by without reducing speed at all.

Scummer

Ok... so traffic is slowing down for a bit... and? Traffic is also slowing down very often because people tailgate, move from the outer left lane all the way to the right to catch the exit in the last 50 meters, blowing through red lights, are on the cellphone, drinking, eating, fiddling with the radio, yelling at the kids in the back, watching movies on their DVD players.

Traffic is full of delays and road hazards... a few bikes ain't the problem whatsoever.

But this society is all about "me me me me me" "I need to get to point B 1 second faster"
A little courtesy goes a long way and will actually reduce stress levels.

It is f'd up to the point that some people are so dumb to believe it is their god given right to drive a car.

Banzai

New dumbest statement of the week.

Others will be along shortly to tell you how many things are wrong with what you wrote.

schnee

Everyone pays taxes that go to roads, the 'use taxes' of car registration fees only partially cover it.

Also, cars often get massive subsidies and tax breaks - in the same way billionaire sports franchise owners get huge tax money. Cars are seen as a boon to overall business (even if they're really not), so your average driver doesn't pay for nearly as much of the road as they think.

When you factor in the amount of wear and tear a 150lb. rider on a 25lb. bike does compared to a 150lb. driver in a 2,000lb. car, the imbalance gets ridiculous.

In fair weather states, if roads were 90% bicycle traffic, they'd need to be replaced 1/2 to 1/3 as often. That doesn't hold as true in places with lots of snow and ice, so I could see a cycling fee, but if - and only if - the money goes towards infrastructure to increase cycling traffic.

caloso

But yeah to WR's suggestion. To make it fair, let's just base the registration on vehicle weight. Let's say $1/kg/year. For all vehicles.

schnee

Well, it will help us clydesdales by cutting down the food budget I guess.

waterrockets 

So, the question is: does the density wave around a cyclist cause more disruption than another car? People enter and exit the density wave at their normal cruising speed (45mph?), but maybe travel through it at 35mph. Another car sets everyone backwards maybe 75 ft and slows overall traffic continually by some small amount.

adamt

if my mayor would stop diddling minors - I bet the city could save more money than the taxes generated by a bike tax. Or DONT build a train in downtown or out to the suburbs in Clackamas!

My opinion - if the vehicle is self propelled - it is untaxed. Dont punish people for living a healthy lifestyle.

If it has a motor then tax it. Get those jackholes in the motorized razor scooters to pay cash to wake me up at 3am while digging through my recycling. Or Segways. Those guys fly down the sidewalks.

Retro Grouch 

That's what I think too.

hamslice

I'd be fine paying a registration fee if it meant nice wide bike lanes all over the place.

Paying a fee for essentially no reason on the other hand...

billallbritten

Riding a bicycle on a city sidewalk in Murray is prohibited by ordinance. Some cities allow it outside of the "downtown retail area" and/or with age restrictions, i.e. <12 only. I can't think of anything much more dangerous (other than wrong way riding) than sidewalking - too many chances to be picked off at driveways and street intersections.

UtahWasatch

Fixed

billallbritten

No panic but a but the cynic-o-meter reading bumps up every time something like this comes along.

Retro Grouch 

There's a monument near my house for a road that was originally built by Daniel Boone. That road was built 100 years before gasoline was invented and roughly another 100 years before anybody thought to tax gasoline. Bottom line, except for limited access highways the primary financing for most roads is, and always has been, property taxes. Everybody has to live somewhere so virtually everybody contributes either directly or indirectly.

not2fast

So $27 a year to register a 12 pound bike? I only pay $85 to register my 7500 pound diesel in Pennsylvania every year!!

JeffS

Wow, your family is full of liars.

Personally, I'm not even going to debate this with most people. I pay twice the taxes of most people in my family and can produce a HUGE list of services that my taxes fund that do not benefit me.

We all know that taxing bicycles has absolutely no effect on public perception. The worst part is that government will likely spend $100 every two years just to collect that $54 from someone. In the end, there's no benefit to anyone.

tkehler

Apparently in the UK, if you prove -- and I'm not sure how this is proven -- that you cycle to work, the gov't will pay half of the cost of a new bike, up to a certain limit (certainly less than a Cervelo). That's a good way to increase bike riding/commuting.

In Denmark, bikes have their own lanes and those lanes often have their own little traffic lights.

JeffS

1) I don't concede that you make any impact on their entire trip. Most cars that I see slow will accelerate back to their original position after passing me.

2) So what? Cars slow each other all the time.

- If people stopped the frivolous trips, trips would be faster - ban/tax frivolous trips. Ban more than one trip to the grocery store. Ban single-occupant cars. Ban driving your kid to school. etc. etc. etc. I'm not proposing that, but every single one of them has more effect on traffic than cyclists do.

If someone gives me a hard time, I'll look them in the eye and ask why they're not taxed for polluting the air I breathe. Ask someone that IN PERSON, and see if anyone has a comeback.

JeffS

Yes, but rec rides have little to no benefit for society and group rides are the single biggest complaint (followed by running reds) that people have.