[rola643]

Every time this seems to go away and I forget about it..it seems to come back up. I for one do not like the idea of being taxed and licensed to ride my bike.

I would however, be 100% on board, if it protected my rights in the courts better than they are now!! AND specific bike lanes became mandatory for safety

Should cyclists be licensed!

 

[katz]

Every time this seems to go away and I forget about it..it seems to come back up. I for one do not like the idea of being taxed and licensed to ride my bike.

I would however, be 100% on board, if it protected my rights in the courts better than they are now!! AND specific bike lanes became mandatory for safety

Should cyclists be licensed!

There is a conservative (RINO) talk show host in Boston (WBZ) in the evenings who has been pushing this for a few years. He is also a "biker hater". He had a guest on a week or so ago and they all had a hate fest call in show.

I was surprised that no one from the biking community called in to defend the biking position.

I'm very hesitant to get the govt. involved, since the politicians are so good at goofing everything else up since they don't understand the issues.

If there was a biking lobby group or some such representation for us, I would possibly be on board with it.

Just my .02...

 

[Buffalo-jon]

will any of the dollars generated actually go to bike related items (ie repairing paths etc) or will it just get swallowed up in the bureaucratic machine? Health care and a hefty salary for the politically connected guy who gets the job of administrating the program?. Just like in blazing saddles I can see it now William J. Le Petomane toll booths up and down all of our bike paths. Better take a S%$t load of dimes when you go riding from now on!

 

[Industry_Hack]

I didn't read your article, sorry. Once the taxpayers found out that it is going to cost them more to administer bike taxes and registration than they collect, the discussion gets dropped.

 

[katz]

will any of the dollars generated actually go to bike related items (ie repairing paths etc) or will it just get swallowed up in the bureaucratic machine?

This

Better take a S%$t load of dimes when you go riding from now on!

Hey, I'm trying to save weight here!

Maybe they will use one of those "Easypass" transponder things on the bike so we don't even have to stop at a booth...

 

[newleaf150]

<snip>

Hey, I'm trying to save weight here!

Maybe they will use one of those "Easypass" transponder things on the bike so we don't even have to stop at a booth...

The toll road company out here took away our transponders - too expensive. They were replaced with bar-coded stickers. Those are secondary, though, since they just mean you get a discount. The system operates by photographing your license plate as you pass. They're tied in with the State MVD, of course. So...no dimes, just a license plate. Mandatory insurance is unlikely to be far behind.

 

[omnivox42]

Every time this seems to go away and I forget about it..it seems to come back up. I for one do not like the idea of being taxed and licensed to ride my bike.

I would however, be 100% on board, if it protected my rights in the courts better than they are now!! AND specific bike lanes became mandatory for safety

Should cyclists be licensed!

I do not like the idea of requiring a license to do something that should be free. Self locomotion is kinda built in you know? But if the money that went to the licensing (for road riding) went to infrastructure as well as protected us roadies I would be on board. So I guess I do agree....mostly :thumbsup:

 

[LarryM]

Every time this seems to go away and I forget about it..it seems to come back up. I for one do not like the idea of being taxed and licensed to ride my bike.

I would however, be 100% on board, if it protected my rights in the courts better than they are now!! AND specific bike lanes became mandatory for safety

Should cyclists be licensed!

The probem with licensing cyclists is that, in every single place where it has been implemented, the program costs much, much more to administer that the revenues collected. It just doesn't work.

... AND specific bike lanes became mandatory for safety ...

If you're saying you would like to see consideration of bike lanes and other bike specific infrastructure mandatory in some situations, as in communities with a Complete Streets program, I agree. If you are saying that you want laws to require cyclists to use bike lanes or side paths rather than a particular section of road, I strongly disagree. ... but that is probably a topic for a different thread.

 

[omnivox42]

The probem with licensing cyclists is that, in every single place where it has been implemented, the program costs much, much more to administer that the revenues collected. It just doesn't work.

If you're saying you would like to see consideration of bike lanes and other bike specific infrastructure mandatory in some situations, as in communities with a Complete Streets program, I agree. If you are saying that you want laws to require cyclists to use bike lanes or side paths rather than a particular section of road, I strongly disagree. ... but that is probably a topic for a different thread.

Good points

 

[rola643]

If you're saying you would like to see consideration of bike lanes and other bike specific infrastructure mandatory in some situations, as in communities with a Complete Streets program, I... but that is probably a topic for a different thread.

I was thinking of infastructure, communities being built around those ideas seems to work well from what little I have seen and read.

 

[LarryM]

I was thinking of infastructure, communities being built around those ideas seems to work well from what little I have seen and read.

Indeed. It'll take a few years to gather enough stats to "prove" it, but initial reports I've seen make it look traffic calming, and bike and ped friendly engineering cut down on auto/auto crashes as well as auto/bike and auto/ped crashes.

 

[davereo]

I was surprised that no one from the biking community called in to defend the biking position.

The call screeners wouldnt let them through.

 

[katz]

The call screeners wouldnt let them through.

That could be very true.

 

[davereo]

Katz are you from Massachusetts? I live in the south coast Fall River Area.

 

[katz]

Katz are you from Massachusetts? I live in the south coast Fall River Area.

Nope, I'm in PA, but I used to listen to 'BZ quite a bit. I've largely lost interest in the station now though, due to the programming changes over the last year.

 

[cderalow]

Katz are you from Massachusetts? I live in the south coast Fall River Area.

I grew up n Somerville and Brookline

 

[Sneakers]

Every time this seems to go away and I forget about it..it seems to come back up. I for one do not like the idea of being taxed and licensed to ride my bike.

I would however, be 100% on board, if it protected my rights in the courts better than they are now!! AND specific bike lanes became mandatory for safety

Should cyclists be licensed!

Personally I'm for it, but also against it, weird huh? Let me explain. I'm for it IF, and that's a huge if which I'll explain later, if the fee is a one time fee at the time of purchased base on the purchase price of the the bike, and then only for adult bikes. A 5% one time point of purchase fee that would register the bike's serial number for aid in helping to find a stolen bike and get it back to it's rightful owner would be a big plus. But mostly the money gets used to help improve, not totally fund but to assist current funding of bike trails, paths and lanes.

Problem is who will run the fund, the government, that's a huge problem and it's why I'm against it. The government will find ways to steal the money claiming they need it for more important projects. The federal government already gives states highway money, part of that money is to be used for bike infrastructure improvements, Indiana this last summer stole that money and diverted it to road projects saying the road projects were more important. And that's not the first time that a state, or the feds, stole tax money, and it won't be the last. Also the feds could come back and say, well gee you don't need any fed money for the bicycle stuff because you got plenty of money from the fees...there goes any chance of improving the system.

I am also against raising taxes like sales or property or whatever to fund bicycle infrastructure because currently in America only 1% of the population commutes by bike, the demand isn't anywhere high enough to justify raising taxes to pay for something rarely used.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

Personally I'm for it, but also against it, weird huh? Let me explain. I'm for it IF, and that's a huge if which I'll explain later, if the fee is a one time fee at the time of purchased base on the purchase price of the the bike, and then only for adult bikes. A 5% one time point of purchase fee that would register the bike's serial number for aid in helping to find a stolen bike and get it back to it's rightful owner would be a big plus. But mostly the money gets used to help improve, not totally fund but to assist current funding of bike trails, paths and lanes.

Problem is who will run the fund, the government, that's a huge problem and it's why I'm against it. The government will find ways to steal the money claiming they need it for more important projects. The federal government already gives states highway money, part of that money is to be used for bike infrastructure improvements, Indiana this last summer stole that money and diverted it to road projects saying the road projects were more important. And that's not the first time that a state, or the feds, stole tax money, and it won't be the last. Also the feds could come back and say, well gee you don't need any fed money for the bicycle stuff because you got plenty of money from the fees...there goes any chance of improving the system.

I am also against raising taxes like sales or property or whatever to fund bicycle infrastructure because currently in America only 1% of the population commutes by bike, the demand isn't anywhere high enough to justify raising taxes to pay for something rarely used.

As I've said at another site where this topic has come up, stores will complain about the increased paperwork. For the purpose of your for adult bikes:

A) what's an "adult" bike? I've seen kids tall enough to ride an "adult" bike.
B) at what age would a kid be an "adult" for the purpose of this fee?
C) what happens if a store collects the money but doesn't submit it and the paperwork like they're suppose to?
D) why would used bikes be exempt? and what would stop a bike store from claiming that the bikes that they're selling aren't theirs, but are bikes that they're selling on consignment to get out of collecting the fee?

 

[Sneakers]

I would hope by now with all the technology we have there shouldn't be much if any paperwork. It should be handled just like they do with the sales tax. And the registration would simply require the LBS to put the serial number into a website that will store the number.

Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world, a kids bike is anything 24" and less in wheels size; so yes, there could be some kids that could exceed that, but there are some adults that could ride 24" wheels and less, so I think that would sort of balance itself out.

And adult would be anyone 18 or over.

Of course if an adult came in who was short and bought a kids size bike they could simply say the bike was for their kid and the LBS would never know nor would the government, people cheat on their taxes all the time and I'm sure there would be some fudging going on here too.

Used bikes would optional, it's the only way to do it. Optional if the purchaser wants to make sure their bike is registered and get the theft recovery protection feature, or simply because they like the idea of the tax and what it does.

Again there are cheats all over this country that will do anything to get out of paying a tax, it's the way it is, but most would pay it.

But again, I'm against it because the government would steal the money, even if they had some sort of law written to prevent the money from being stolen, then they would reduce the funds being diverted from gasoline sales for cycling improvements, and if you made a law to prevent that then the government would create to many agencies and too many superiors to operate the fund and strip most of the cash to pay for salaries and eventually the retirement fund would bankrupt the program.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

I would hope by now with all the technology we have there shouldn't be much if any paperwork. It should be handled just like they do with the sales tax. And the registration would simply require the LBS to put the serial number into a website that will store the number.

Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world, a kids bike is anything 24" and less in wheels size; so yes, there could be some kids that could exceed that, but there are some adults that could ride 24" wheels and less, so I think that would sort of balance itself out.

And adult would be anyone 18 or over.

Of course if an adult came in who was short and bought a kids size bike they could simply say the bike was for their kid and the LBS would never know nor would the government, people cheat on their taxes all the time and I'm sure there would be some fudging going on here too.

Used bikes would optional, it's the only way to do it. Optional if the purchaser wants to make sure their bike is registered and get the theft recovery protection feature, or simply because they like the idea of the tax and what it does.

Again there are cheats all over this country that will do anything to get out of paying a tax, it's the way it is, but most would pay it.

But again, I'm against it because the government would steal the money, even if they had some sort of law written to prevent the money from being stolen, then they would reduce the funds being diverted from gasoline sales for cycling improvements, and if you made a law to prevent that then the government would create to many agencies and too many superiors to operate the fund and strip most of the cash to pay for salaries and eventually the retirement fund would bankrupt the program.

Like stores and businesses even with all the technology don't already not properly report sales and/or payroll taxes that they're already required to pay.

That technology had better be seamless. So that stores only have to enter serial numbers once. Would stores be required to pay this tax/fee when they order/buy the bikes or only collect it when the bike(s) are sold?