I-Like-To-Bike

You would likely be as successful "shutting up" such "closed minded" people if you handed out your dirty socks and asked them to stuff them in their mouth for silence.

genec

Probably more sucessful with the old socks... as there are those drivers that for whatever reason feel that they DO own the road.

Anyway... bike registration is just some short sighted politicos wet dream... and Costco needs to get a clue.

Daniel4

Here’s a brief history of bicycle licensing in Toronto.

Licensing - Cycling and the Law - Cycling | City of Toronto
Any revenue raised by licensing would be quickly consumed by the administration of this department….which is why I continue to advocate for having an 8 hour on-road bicycle experience as a requirement to earn a drivers license.

Then again Costco and other retailers of bicycles can simply take the name and address of the purchaser and submit it along with the fee (at no extra charge to the customer, of course) to the municipality of the purchaser’s residence.

Rollfast

Whatever the reasoning was behind the story, I'm sure it was mainly to freak out A&S posters

They know we're here I suppose!

Rollfast

Just critiquing here, but didn't you forget chloroform?

I know...too many black and white movies.

genec

Of course one of the issues with municipal "registration" is the mere fact that one can easily cross municipal boundaries, even on a local ride.

If a registration scheme is to work, it has to be at least state wide.

rydabent

Having to buy a bike license is little more than a way tax and spend b'crats have come up with to get citizens money. They seem to have no end of ideas to separate people from their money. They have some brain damaged idea that they know how to better spend your hard earned money than you do.

forresterace

Clearly, this is Rydabent's standard answer line - wouldn't be surprised if he had a rubber stamp to that effect.

scott967

My state has mandatory registration/tax (Hawaii revised Statutes Chap 249 Sec 14):
§249-14 Bicycle and moped fee. (a) Bicycles having two tandem wheels that are twenty inches or more in diameter and all mopeds are required to be registered and shall be subject to a permanent registration fee of $15, to be paid by the owners thereof to the director of finance.

doesn't affect a thing AFAICT. Also not sure what the compliance rate is. They can take your bike if it doesn't have a registration sticker on the seat tube, but I see plenty of bikes without sticker. Though an LBS must pay the tax "for you" and put on the sticker before the bike leaves the door.

scott s.
.

jgadamski

I don't believe anything would silence that meme. Somehow, the idea that the roads are part of the 'commons' lost favor when they stole the 'good roads' from cyclists in the early 1900s

kickstart

Yeah right, a handful of dandies in horseless carriages "stole" the roads from a handful of dandies on bicycles..............

jgadamski

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Roads_Movement

kickstart

Ah yes, this again.

Nobody else had anything to do with road improvement, if it weren't for bicycles, all the roads would still be dirt

Cyclists were nothing more than a voice in the crowd.

jgadamski

Believe what you chose to. I can cite sources, far beyond a fast and dirty wiki. Neither of us were there, so it boils down to opinion. And you know where you stand with me.

kickstart

There are far more cyclists now, representing a much greater cross section of society, with far greater influence, and our overall contribution is still nothing more than a footnote. To believe cyclists played a significant role in the evolution of roads one must exercise very selective tunnel vision.

Aqua_Andy

This is a great topic for discussion and one I just don't understand. Shouldn't we be rewarding cyclists for using the roads instead of trying to tax them for it? why not give tax breaks for cyclists to encourage people to leave there vehicles at home? As I see it, the vast majority of cyclists also own an automobile in which part of the state and town registration fees goes toward road and infrastructure improvement. So in a fact cyclists are also paying for the use of the roads but not causing traffic jams wear on the road surfaces while also cutting down on pollution and health costs for the masses. I see nothing but a big can of worms in bicycle registration. Will the registration be citywide or statewide? Will registrations be reciprocal from city to city and state to state? In the state of NH and neighboring states OHRV registrations are not reciprocal. Can you imagine having to register your bike in every town or city you ride in? What about multiple bicycles? Do I need one for every bike I intend to ride on the road? Yes All I see is one massive can of worms and none of the revenue going back into the infrastructure.

Gresp15C

Another concern is that the fees are unlikely to pay for themselves in administrative costs and enforcement, because there just aren't that many cyclists, and most will ignore paying the fee.

KingCat

Not only should we have bike registration, but we should have a mandatory 5 day waiting period, background check and written test.

highrpm

I agree with Aqua_Andy regarding cycling and how it's used. When I ride my bike to work, I'm actually causing LESS damage to roads since my car sits at home. I paid for a full year of insurance and registration on that car anyway.

To me, a huge part of getting into bicycles more, and especially cycle commuting, is that this hobby doesn't have the recurring insurance and registration costs like my motorcycles did.

If we are looking to get more folks out of cars and onto bicycles, then we need to provide some incentives for them and not add costs.

Daniel4

This sort of thing discourages bicycle riding which results in keeping people in their cars. Not the type thing you want if you are a municipal planner trying to solve congestion and pollution.

I would rather have a mandatory 8-hours of on road bicycle experience as a requirement for the drivers licence.

Daniel4

I like this quote from the link:

"The League fought for equal privileges with horse-drawn vehicles. All these battles were won and the bicyclist was accorded equal rights with other users of highways and streets."

Dirt roads and cobblestone roads had been around since the Roman Empire because they were suitable for horses. You can try to ride a bike on cobblestone but it wouldn't be very comfortable.

FBinNY 

based on your response to this:

[B][B] Originally Posted by KingCat
Not only should we have bike registration, but we should have a mandatory 5 day waiting period, background check and written test.

You might want to have your irony detector recalibrated.

Leisesturm

^THIS is where the issue lives for me. In my city if a motorist has an equipment failure:headlight, tail-light, they get a $65 summons which can usually be waived by bringing proof of compliance to the court. If a bicyclist is cited for not having required equipment the fines start at $200 and go up from there. Tags on bicycles and the fines for not having them... I can just imagine. A yearly $200 registration with fines for non-compliance starting at $1000. Or a point of sale fee on new bike sales at 25% of sales price. Non-cyclists would think this quite reasonable and when all those cyclists went back to driving the oil company execs would rejoice. But right thinking people should lament the greed and shortsightedness.

rydabent

I dont but do you know where I can get one?

This of course is about bikes, but it is just another example of under worked over paid b'crats comming up with another rule or law. If they dont come up with these insane ideas, people would get the idea they are not needed at all. BTW they arent.

FBinNY 

Not taking a position here, except to say that I believe that bicycle registration is dumb for a myriad of reasons.

But I do want to point out a logic failure.

When a motorist is cited for a light being out, the law considers that bulbs do fail, and that can happen to anybody, so it accords a reasonable time to correct the issue. This is as it should be, and I don't see a problem. OTOH -- that's materially different from a cyclist not installing a mandated light o bell in the first place. The first can happen even to one acting in good faith compliance with the law, while the second implies willful disregard of the law. By the same token, if a cyclist has a light unit that happens not to be working at the time, then I'd expect the law to afford him the same courtesy as it would a motorist.

In a way the issue is analogous to the difference between pitching a stone and breaking someone's window, and having a rock thrown up by your tire do the same thing. The rest of the post veers into hyperbolic nonsense not worth debating.