North Carolina bill to require bicycle registration/fee
#76
Newbie racer
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,406
Bikes: Propel, red is faster
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1575 Post(s)
Liked 1,569 Times
in
974 Posts
regarding the fishing (and other hunting) licenses: out of state licenses will always be higher than the same licenses will be in your home state, unless there is some kind of agreement between the states, like the fishing licenses in Smoky Mtn park.
regarding the idiotic HB157 bill proposal: after calming down a bit, I sent an email to BikeWalkNC to see if they had any kind of 'generic' letter I could send to the state representatives.
I live in Asheville, have several bicycles, and am truly appalled at HB157.
Is there any kind of 'form letter' available, stating some facts about how this would not work, how it would be a bad idea overall, how it would make the DMV more of a mess than it already is, that I could send to each member of the state house and senate, and perhaps the governor too?
I learned of this bill on bikeforums.net, in this thread:
North Carolina bill to require bicycle registration/fee - Bike Forums
and I'd like to do as much as possible to kill this bill asap.
Please let me know
Thank you.
This was their reply:
We are working on this now. Look for something in the next 24-48 hours after we do some more information gathering on this bill as well as complete streets codification, the removal of the 2013 funding limitation, Safe Routes to School, and the changes to the bicycle definition bill.
regarding the idiotic HB157 bill proposal: after calming down a bit, I sent an email to BikeWalkNC to see if they had any kind of 'generic' letter I could send to the state representatives.
I live in Asheville, have several bicycles, and am truly appalled at HB157.
Is there any kind of 'form letter' available, stating some facts about how this would not work, how it would be a bad idea overall, how it would make the DMV more of a mess than it already is, that I could send to each member of the state house and senate, and perhaps the governor too?
I learned of this bill on bikeforums.net, in this thread:
North Carolina bill to require bicycle registration/fee - Bike Forums
and I'd like to do as much as possible to kill this bill asap.
Please let me know
Thank you.
This was their reply:
We are working on this now. Look for something in the next 24-48 hours after we do some more information gathering on this bill as well as complete streets codification, the removal of the 2013 funding limitation, Safe Routes to School, and the changes to the bicycle definition bill.
#77
Senior Member
#78
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: St Peters, Missouri
Posts: 30,225
Bikes: Catrike 559 I own some others but they don't get ridden very much.
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1572 Post(s)
Liked 643 Times
in
364 Posts
. So do pure electric cars, a growing market.
__________________
My greatest fear is all of my kids standing around my coffin and talking about "how sensible" dad was.
My greatest fear is all of my kids standing around my coffin and talking about "how sensible" dad was.
#79
Senior Member
Traditionally, muscle-powered transportation has been kept unregulated due to constitutional concerns (freedom of travel.) If they are allowed require bicycle licensing, walking would be next -- walking uses roads, paths, or sidewalks, all of which are built and maintained with tax monies.
#80
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,488
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7652 Post(s)
Liked 3,473 Times
in
1,834 Posts
The whole "user fee" topic raises the question of how the costs are calculated.
If I never ride on MUPs (which are just more dangerous sidewalks) then the only impact I have (since bikes do no harm to roads) would be using painted bike lanes ... but I would ride the same space whether there were bike lanes or not (and more often there are not.) So my question is, how am I costing anything, by riding my bike? How is the cost assessed? How is the overall cost of all cyclists assessed?
But that is crap because as has been shown, no government runs on "user fees." There is a "General Fund" for a good reason.
Further .... if one were to push "user fees," I want my money back. I use my car about half-a-dozen times a year and already pay an annual registration fee. Somebody is driving extra miles on my dime ....
If I never ride on MUPs (which are just more dangerous sidewalks) then the only impact I have (since bikes do no harm to roads) would be using painted bike lanes ... but I would ride the same space whether there were bike lanes or not (and more often there are not.) So my question is, how am I costing anything, by riding my bike? How is the cost assessed? How is the overall cost of all cyclists assessed?
But that is crap because as has been shown, no government runs on "user fees." There is a "General Fund" for a good reason.
Further .... if one were to push "user fees," I want my money back. I use my car about half-a-dozen times a year and already pay an annual registration fee. Somebody is driving extra miles on my dime ....
#81
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Wherever I am
Posts: 8,635
Bikes: Merlin Cyrene, Nashbar steel CX
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4733 Post(s)
Liked 1,531 Times
in
1,002 Posts
Probably not; the number of commuters in the U.S. who switch their mode of travel from motor vehicle to bicycle due to the presence of MUP(s) (somewhere) along the commuter route probably amounts to an insignificant slice of the commuting population. In a dense urban area like NYC more than likely the bicycling commuter would be switching from public transit, rather than an auto commute.
In the case of Taxis/Ubers, it's already an issue how many of them there are. In the case of Mass Transit.. lower ridership should mean less stress on mass transit system and need to add more services; in the case of C) Driving -- well we already have that determined.
#82
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,893
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1062 Post(s)
Liked 665 Times
in
421 Posts
Taking use taxes to the point of absurdity, matching every penny of tax with a corresponding penny's worth of use, would require a bureaucracy bigger than the number of taxpayers. Assigning use taxes on a less fine grained basis requires theories about how things are used and money is spent -- those theories are unavoidably political. So you're back with what we have right now, which is a hodgepodge of user fees based on what the policy-makers consider to be politically palatable. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing -- it's how a representative democracy works.
In our society, it's unavoidable that each of us pays for goodies that we don't benefit from, but that someone else does, while enjoying the overall rise in prosperity supported by a complex, modern economy.
I have another concern about the tax, which is that I have several bikes, but can only ride one of them at the time. My state has a $15/y user fee for the state bike trails, but at least I can use it with any bike. And I pay no fee for state parks if I arrive by bike.
In our society, it's unavoidable that each of us pays for goodies that we don't benefit from, but that someone else does, while enjoying the overall rise in prosperity supported by a complex, modern economy.
I have another concern about the tax, which is that I have several bikes, but can only ride one of them at the time. My state has a $15/y user fee for the state bike trails, but at least I can use it with any bike. And I pay no fee for state parks if I arrive by bike.
#83
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,488
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7652 Post(s)
Liked 3,473 Times
in
1,834 Posts
Not sure, but i'd imagine most Citibikes are replacing cab rides or walking. People use the trains to get around longer distances because they are faster and safer. To work or to downtown or to the office or whatever is a train ride because you can carry all your gear for the day and arrive ready to go. Once int he city or in whatever neighborhoods, Citibikes are better than cabs (cheaper and sort of fun) for short trips where one won't be carrying much---pick up the dry-cleaning, get some small items, go for lunch. Some ridiculous percentage (83 % or something) of New Yorkers are car-free, so it isn't driving that gets cut, I'd imagine. Trains aren;'t awesome for short trips because there s a lot of walking and waiting. Cabs, walking, and Citibikes are perfect for short, time-sensitive trips (like an hour for lunch) so that would be my guess.
#84
Generally bewildered
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Eastern PA, USA
Posts: 3,037
Bikes: 2014 Trek Domane 6.9, 1999 LeMond Zurich, 1978 Schwinn Superior
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1152 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
251 Posts
Taking use taxes to the point of absurdity, matching every penny of tax with a corresponding penny's worth of use, would require a bureaucracy bigger than the number of taxpayers. Assigning use taxes on a less fine grained basis requires theories about how things are used and money is spent -- those theories are unavoidably political. So you're back with what we have right now, which is a hodgepodge of user fees based on what the policy-makers consider to be politically palatable. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing -- it's how a representative democracy works.
In our society, it's unavoidable that each of us pays for goodies that we don't benefit from, but that someone else does, while enjoying the overall rise in prosperity supported by a complex, modern economy.
I have another concern about the tax, which is that I have several bikes, but can only ride one of them at the time. My state has a $15/y user fee for the state bike trails, but at least I can use it with any bike. And I pay no fee for state parks if I arrive by bike.
In our society, it's unavoidable that each of us pays for goodies that we don't benefit from, but that someone else does, while enjoying the overall rise in prosperity supported by a complex, modern economy.
I have another concern about the tax, which is that I have several bikes, but can only ride one of them at the time. My state has a $15/y user fee for the state bike trails, but at least I can use it with any bike. And I pay no fee for state parks if I arrive by bike.
My SIL is a teacher in the Chicago area, and the union and local goverment negotiated away the teacher's rights to particiate in Social Security. So they don't pay FICA, their money goes to local government. Guess who's not gonna see her full pension? But the money was supposed to go into sequestered accounts!
Another Chicago example, from the Chicago Trib: " ...in an unprecedented analysis of Chicago’s finances, a Tribune investigation found that city officials have long abused their borrowing privileges, spending funds meant for long-term initiatives on problematic short-term expenses from library books to legal settlements. " And " Between 2000 and 2012, Chicago spent $9.8 billion in general obligation bond proceeds with few restrictions and virtually no oversight. "
#85
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Wherever I am
Posts: 8,635
Bikes: Merlin Cyrene, Nashbar steel CX
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4733 Post(s)
Liked 1,531 Times
in
1,002 Posts
Not sure, but i'd imagine most Citibikes are replacing cab rides or walking. People use the trains to get around longer distances because they are faster and safer. To work or to downtown or to the office or whatever is a train ride because you can carry all your gear for the day and arrive ready to go. Once int he city or in whatever neighborhoods, Citibikes are better than cabs (cheaper and sort of fun) for short trips where one won't be carrying much---pick up the dry-cleaning, get some small items, go for lunch. Some ridiculous percentage (83 % or something) of New Yorkers are car-free, so it isn't driving that gets cut, I'd imagine. Trains aren;'t awesome for short trips because there s a lot of walking and waiting. Cabs, walking, and Citibikes are perfect for short, time-sensitive trips (like an hour for lunch) so that would be my guess.
It's a bit interesting.. found some info on the bikeshare site. Typically average distance ridden on a Citibike is about 2 miles. Over 10 million rides are done per year. Typical carbon offset is over 2.5 million pounds per month (during warmer months). https://www.citibikenyc.com/system-d...rating-reports
Cabs and Ubers are drivers/cars, so a diversion from those to bikes is a good thing.
Unquantifiable is also an assumed public health benefit that carries an associated cost.
#86
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bristol, R. I.
Posts: 4,340
Bikes: Specialized Secteur, old Peugeot
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 663 Post(s)
Liked 496 Times
in
299 Posts
I agree totally with this. Every other interest group has lobbyists in the nations capitals and so should cyclists. Bike clubs at least are a not lobbyists but but can do a good job of advocacy and some already do. My own bike club, Narragansett Bay Wheelmen, has been around over 100 years and do a fine job of advocacy having had a good bit of practice. It is much preferred to pay club dues than taxes imposed by people who know nothing of cycling.
#87
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,268
Bikes: Bianchi Ti Megatube; Colnago Competition; Planet-X EC-130E; Klein Pulse; Amp Research B4; Litespeed Catalyst; Trek Y11
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 605 Post(s)
Liked 480 Times
in
260 Posts
I agree with the fallacy of putting too much value on the concept of "use taxes". It has to be used this way to a degree, as using more of any resource should require more contribution. (Water charges, electricity, petrol... "sales tax", etc.) But there should also be some level of contribution from more "general taxation" (such as income, inheritance, capital gains, etc.) to pay to live in a better world.
You may not have kids, but you want to contribute to pay for everyone else's kids to go to school, so we can have a more educated population, and everyone benefits.
What sort of society do you want to live in? A safer, cleaner one, that helps people be healthier, be happier? Or an "every man for himself", profit-driven approach, that hurts the poor and vulnerable, and benefits the wealthy?
You may not have kids, but you want to contribute to pay for everyone else's kids to go to school, so we can have a more educated population, and everyone benefits.
What sort of society do you want to live in? A safer, cleaner one, that helps people be healthier, be happier? Or an "every man for himself", profit-driven approach, that hurts the poor and vulnerable, and benefits the wealthy?
#88
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,530
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2112 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times
in
443 Posts
Probably not; the number of commuters in the U.S. who switch their mode of travel from motor vehicle to bicycle due to the presence of MUP(s) (somewhere) along the commuter route probably amounts to an insignificant slice of the commuting population. In a dense urban area like NYC more than likely the bicycling commuter would be switching from public transit, rather than an auto commute.
Sure, but....
Would you guess that people are also getting ON bikes to go to public transit?
In fact, the combination of successful MUPs to transit stations in the morning is enormously successful at getting people out of their cars. An example, Alewife in Cambridge (our fair city) MA has the largest car parking garage on the MBTA subway system at 2700 spaces. There are 450 secure bike parking spaces, another 300 or so official spaces, and another 300 bikes locked “unofficially.” Then another 40 blue bike docks and another 50 lime bikes. Then there are the people who walk along the MUPs to Alewife, plus people who take busses to Alewife.
There are 11,000 people who enter the station inbound each day. You do the math of how many of them drive a car to get onto a train.
We aren’t even counting the bike commuters who ride past Alewife on their way to work, but those folks are counted by the census with the American Community Survey.
Now, get rid of the MUPs, bike parking, all those people walking and biking to and past Alewife would get to work how? (The parking garage is at capacity.)
Get rid of the parking garage, how would people get to work now?
Get rid of Alewife, how would people get to work now?
BTW, we have about the worst motor traffic in the nation.
(Oh, btw, this happens twice a day, people who go to work come home too. But they don’t count people exiting.)
Any questions?
-mr. bill
Last edited by mr_bill; 03-02-19 at 09:02 AM.
#89
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,971
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,534 Times
in
1,044 Posts
So you guess people are getting off public transit and getting on bikes?
Would you guess that people are also getting ON bikes to go to public transit?
In fact, the combination of successful MUPs to transit stations in the morning is enormously successful at getting people out of their cars. An example, Alewife in Cambridge (our fair city) MA has the largest car parking garage on the MBTA subway system at 2700 spaces. There are 450 secure bike parking spaces, another 300 or so official spaces, and another 300 bikes locked “unofficially.” Then another 40 blue bike docks and another 50 lime bikes. Then there are the people who walk along the MUPs to Alewife, plus people who take busses to Alewife.
There are 11,000 people who enter the station inbound each day. You do the math of how many of them drive a car to get onto a train.
We aren’t even counting the bike commuters who ride past Alewife on their way to work, but those folks are counted by the census with the American Community Survey.
Now, get rid of the MUPs, bike parking, all those people walking and biking to and past Alewife would get to work how? (The parking garage is at capacity.)
Get rid of the parking garage, how would people get to work now?
Get rid of Alewife, how would people get to work now?
BTW, we have about the worst motor traffic in the nation.
(Oh, btw, this happens twice a day, people who go to work come home too. But they don’t count people exiting.)
Any questions?
Would you guess that people are also getting ON bikes to go to public transit?
In fact, the combination of successful MUPs to transit stations in the morning is enormously successful at getting people out of their cars. An example, Alewife in Cambridge (our fair city) MA has the largest car parking garage on the MBTA subway system at 2700 spaces. There are 450 secure bike parking spaces, another 300 or so official spaces, and another 300 bikes locked “unofficially.” Then another 40 blue bike docks and another 50 lime bikes. Then there are the people who walk along the MUPs to Alewife, plus people who take busses to Alewife.
There are 11,000 people who enter the station inbound each day. You do the math of how many of them drive a car to get onto a train.
We aren’t even counting the bike commuters who ride past Alewife on their way to work, but those folks are counted by the census with the American Community Survey.
Now, get rid of the MUPs, bike parking, all those people walking and biking to and past Alewife would get to work how? (The parking garage is at capacity.)
Get rid of the parking garage, how would people get to work now?
Get rid of Alewife, how would people get to work now?
BTW, we have about the worst motor traffic in the nation.
(Oh, btw, this happens twice a day, people who go to work come home too. But they don’t count people exiting.)
Any questions?
One, is the point of your rhetorical questions and example to prove that a relative handful of commuters ride a bicycle to one specific transportation hub in the Boston area or that a lot of bike parking spaces exist at one station in Boston?
Two, how many of the daily 11,000 inbound commuters at that station ride a bicycle daily to the station, or better yet, how many commuters ride to any other public transit hub/station/stop in Boston?
Three, any data to indicate how the commuters who do ride a bicycle via an MUP to a transit station in Boston, or transit hub/station/stop anywhere else, got to the hub/station/stop prior to the advent of an MUP to the station or dedicated/secure or ride sharing parking at the station?
Four, any data to indicate how the commuters who do ride a bicycle via an MUP to/from their work or study (for students) destination in Boston, or anywhere else, got to/from their work or study (for students) destination prior to the advent of ride sharing, or an MUP and/or dedicated/secure bicycling at the destination?
Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 03-02-19 at 10:37 AM. Reason: Add a fourth question
#91
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
You might want to learn the difference between a politician and a bureaucrat. A bureaucrat would recognize that this will cost more to administer than it could possibly collect in fees, this politician just wants to appease his bike-hating constituents and flip off bicyclists.
#93
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
Probably not; the number of commuters in the U.S. who switch their mode of travel from motor vehicle to bicycle due to the presence of MUP(s) (somewhere) along the commuter route probably amounts to an insignificant slice of the commuting population. In a dense urban area like NYC more than likely the bicycling commuter would be switching from public transit, rather than an auto commute.
Gosh, dontcha think you oughta support these assertions before you go demanding a bunch of facts and figures about Tstops in Boston?
Anything but your gut behind your estimations of "probably" and " likely "?
Last edited by livedarklions; 03-02-19 at 09:44 PM.
#94
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,971
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,534 Times
in
1,044 Posts
The Boston poster asked "Any questions?" I asked questions relevant to his post.
The poster from Boston tossed out a bunch of numbers about parking spaces at one station in response to the post that you cite that did not indicate anything about how many bike commuters ride anywhere or what impact MUP's have made on the number of commuters who switched to bike commuting as part of their commuting routine or how they previously commuted.
Perhaps you have an opinion, information or maybe even a question on the topic; or perhaps not.
#95
Senior Member
Hold on now. I have no skin in the game here, and my Conservative self shouts out at me "They're just going to take that ten bucks, times hundreds of thousands of bikers, and put in in the general fund to enrich themselves and their political allies". So your impulse was my first impulse, Timothy.
On the other hand, it seems to me that if bike registration costs you ten bucks, and you pay it, you have a right to go to your local legislator AND STAND ON HIS OR HER THROAT to get bike lines put in, potholes fixed, dangerous intersections redesigned, MUPS, etc. In other words, ten bucks might be cheap leverage to get useful bike things done. Too, as a Conservative I believe in use taxes: taxes should fall on those that use public stuff. So cars should pay a license fee and taxes on gas should pay for roads. If we bikers want to use roads or MUPS, we should pay for em. Not fair to let the general public pay for our (bikers) convenience.
.
On the other hand, it seems to me that if bike registration costs you ten bucks, and you pay it, you have a right to go to your local legislator AND STAND ON HIS OR HER THROAT to get bike lines put in, potholes fixed, dangerous intersections redesigned, MUPS, etc. In other words, ten bucks might be cheap leverage to get useful bike things done. Too, as a Conservative I believe in use taxes: taxes should fall on those that use public stuff. So cars should pay a license fee and taxes on gas should pay for roads. If we bikers want to use roads or MUPS, we should pay for em. Not fair to let the general public pay for our (bikers) convenience.
.
Really?
What about pedestrians? What about joggers? Should we require a license to be purchased to walk or jog on a road or use a sidewalk? Yeah, absurd right? So tell me, what's the difference? Why should the rest of the citizenry of NC subsidize pedestrians and joggers who use taxpayer built infrastructure without them paying a "use fee"?
And you HONESTLY BELIEVE any of a $10 bicycle tax is going to go toward doing ANYTHING to improve cycling in NC? If you do, I have a bridge for sale.
Think people, think before you...
Last edited by WNCGoater; 03-03-19 at 11:06 AM.
#96
Senior Member
A big surprise, It doesn't work. (See Link)
As stated above, this is some BS politician wasting time in the General Assembly, trying to introduce crap legislation, to appease the bike hating public. He has nothing of substance to contribute likely, so he finds some hot button issue that will get his name in the paper. It likely won't pass and if it does, it is pretty much likely it won't be enforced. You wouldn't believe the comments made in the wake of FB posts from news outlets. The public, as as whole, HATES the cyclist. Especially here in Western NC where roads are often curvy, with limited safe passing areas and in relatively poor shape to start with. It is indeed difficult to pass oftentimes. It doesn't help the jerks who spread out and take the lane because "by God I can", though there is no good reason to do so, and hold up traffic while slowly grinding up a two mile climb.
https://www.chicagomag.com/city-life...1a_MzhLxIrDcTo
I've written to my state Rep. and Senator and would encourage others to do likewise. Heck, write 'em whether you live here or not, they're just counting Yey or Nay and weighing the political fallout of supporting or not.
As stated above, this is some BS politician wasting time in the General Assembly, trying to introduce crap legislation, to appease the bike hating public. He has nothing of substance to contribute likely, so he finds some hot button issue that will get his name in the paper. It likely won't pass and if it does, it is pretty much likely it won't be enforced. You wouldn't believe the comments made in the wake of FB posts from news outlets. The public, as as whole, HATES the cyclist. Especially here in Western NC where roads are often curvy, with limited safe passing areas and in relatively poor shape to start with. It is indeed difficult to pass oftentimes. It doesn't help the jerks who spread out and take the lane because "by God I can", though there is no good reason to do so, and hold up traffic while slowly grinding up a two mile climb.
https://www.chicagomag.com/city-life...1a_MzhLxIrDcTo
I've written to my state Rep. and Senator and would encourage others to do likewise. Heck, write 'em whether you live here or not, they're just counting Yey or Nay and weighing the political fallout of supporting or not.
Last edited by WNCGoater; 03-03-19 at 11:04 AM.
#97
Generally bewildered
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Eastern PA, USA
Posts: 3,037
Bikes: 2014 Trek Domane 6.9, 1999 LeMond Zurich, 1978 Schwinn Superior
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1152 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
251 Posts
Second, even with low overall taxes I would bet that your total tax burden is way, way more than ten bucks. The ten bucks for bike registration may be the straw that broke the camel's back though. Point is, if taxes (and NCs are lower than average) bug you that much, I'd not focus on the ten dollar bike registration fee. I'd focus on the thousands of dollars of the other taxes you pay.
Besides this being an additional (albeit small) tax, it sounds like the other main issue that torques you is that this legislation seems to be a grandstanding play that has nothing to do with improving cycling or bike safety. If the lawmaker is just being a jerk to curry favor with anti-bike idiots, your anger makes more sense. If so, I reverse an earlier comment. It sounds like you need to build a coalition of bikers to vote him or her out. Or to make him or her sweat a little bit.
The ten bucks doesn't bug me that much. An anti-bike lawmaker does.
Last edited by WizardOfBoz; 03-03-19 at 12:56 PM.
#98
Old fart
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Appleton WI
Posts: 24,784
Bikes: Several, mostly not name brands.
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3587 Post(s)
Liked 3,400 Times
in
1,934 Posts
Since wear and tear on the roads is roughly proportional to vehicle weight, perhaps a tax or purchase surcharge based on vehicle weight applied to all vehicles (trucks, cars, motorcycles, bicycles) would be appropriate? It might be several hundred dollars for a heavy truck, but only a few pennies for a bicycle. That way nobody could whine about cyclists not paying their way (despite the fact that only federal and state level roads are funded by the fuel tax, while city and township roads are funded by property tax, regardless of whether you have a motor vehicle).
#99
Banned
Of course the Political influence is heavier at the heavier vehicle weight end of the scale.. ..
#100
Newbie
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Sign on to BWNC's letter! Join with BikeWalk NC in writing the governor and state rep
goto: https colon //goo.gl/forms/BKZGQWFbqngpwu1h1
Join with BikeWalk NC in writing the governor and state representatives to return funding for Active Transportation Projects and Programs.
March 2, 2019
Dear Governor Cooper and members of the North Carolina General Assembly,
There is no need to create new bicycle registration programs, to tax children and low income cyclists and overburden local, regional and state enforcement and regulatory agencies. The active transportation funding problem of today rests in the decisions of previous legislative bodies.
In 2013 when the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) adopted its goals of implementing its "comprehensive statewide plan for improving bicycling and walking conditions across North Carolina", it focused on five main principles – mobility, safety, health, the economy and the environment. The NC General Assembly that same year, defunded that plan and has since directed NCDOT to spend billions of tax dollars on limited use roadway and turnpike projects, while defunding active transportation.
For six years, North Carolina has not funded any stand-alone bicycle or pedestrian projects. Rural and urban counties across the state have active transportation plans and projects that remain unfunded. Unfair financial burdens exist for local communities which limit their ability to: provide for active transportation, improve roadway safety, enrich their quality of life and placemaking, and enhance North Carolina’s economic vitality through a modern multimodal transportation system.
The undersigned individuals, BikeWalk NC and its organizational partners stand with nine other Regional Planning Organizations and other Metropolitan Planning Organizations that represent millions of North Carolina residents.
We ask that the North Carolina General Assembly provide direct funding that will allow the design, construction and prioritization of Stand-Alone Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects, facilitate safe active transportation facilities through the codification of North Carolina's Complete Streets Policy and remove the 2013 requirement for matching funds for infrastructure that connects and protects us all.
Join with BikeWalk NC in writing the governor and state representatives to return funding for Active Transportation Projects and Programs.
March 2, 2019
Dear Governor Cooper and members of the North Carolina General Assembly,
There is no need to create new bicycle registration programs, to tax children and low income cyclists and overburden local, regional and state enforcement and regulatory agencies. The active transportation funding problem of today rests in the decisions of previous legislative bodies.
In 2013 when the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) adopted its goals of implementing its "comprehensive statewide plan for improving bicycling and walking conditions across North Carolina", it focused on five main principles – mobility, safety, health, the economy and the environment. The NC General Assembly that same year, defunded that plan and has since directed NCDOT to spend billions of tax dollars on limited use roadway and turnpike projects, while defunding active transportation.
For six years, North Carolina has not funded any stand-alone bicycle or pedestrian projects. Rural and urban counties across the state have active transportation plans and projects that remain unfunded. Unfair financial burdens exist for local communities which limit their ability to: provide for active transportation, improve roadway safety, enrich their quality of life and placemaking, and enhance North Carolina’s economic vitality through a modern multimodal transportation system.
The undersigned individuals, BikeWalk NC and its organizational partners stand with nine other Regional Planning Organizations and other Metropolitan Planning Organizations that represent millions of North Carolina residents.
We ask that the North Carolina General Assembly provide direct funding that will allow the design, construction and prioritization of Stand-Alone Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects, facilitate safe active transportation facilities through the codification of North Carolina's Complete Streets Policy and remove the 2013 requirement for matching funds for infrastructure that connects and protects us all.