Not to mention freeways and expressways where bicycles and pedestrians are prohibited.

I’m not against a fair tax but only if it provides equal usage.

The $54 2 year registration fee he proposes is the same as the registration fee for cars. You might be able to make a case that bikers should pay their “fair share” of the cost of maintaining streets and highways, but it’s hard to argue that they should pay the same as cars.

It’s also hard to argue that registration would help police catch bikers who violate traffic violations. When police see a bike commit a moving violation, they can stop the bike, ask for identification, and write a ticket — just as they do when motorists violate the law. This should actually be easier when a bike is involved, since a high-speed chase is unlikely.

…those people? Was he referring to poor people? So if they can’t afford insurance, then it’s a great idea to charge them for riding a bicycle?

I will gladly register my bicycle when there are as many cyclists as motorists, and doubly so when bikes have caused as much damage as cars. Until then, it’s a terrible idea.

http://www.examiner.com/x-3139-NY-Bicycle-Transportation-Examiner~y2009m3d11-Bicycle-licensing-shortsighted-and-discriminatory-Part-I

http://www.examiner.com/x-3139-NY-Bicycle-Transportation-Examiner~y2009m3d12-Bicycle-licensing-shortsighted-and-discriminatory-Part-II

The real disappointment is Freakonomics. The idea that the proposal was even reasonable to consider is very sad.

“Today I’m by myself, but tomorrow I might have a passenger, allowing me to use the HOV lane.”

“Today I’m slow, so I can’t use the passing lane, but tomorrow I might be driving a faster car.”

“I’m not having car trouble today, so I have to stay off the shoulder of the highway (even though I paid for it), but tomorrow I might have an emergency.”

“I’m driving right now, so I have to stay off the sidewalk–but pretty soon I’m going to park, and then I’ll get to use that sidewalk I paid for.”

The one scenario many drivers can never seem to imagine is this one:

“Today I’m driving, but tomorrow I might decide to ride my bike.”

People have no problem paying for parts of the road they might likely never use–or even be allowed to use–as long as somewhere in the dim recesses of their imagination they could see themselves in a situation that would allow them to use it “someday”.

Also, folks who cite “freeloading” as a reason for these types of fees on cyclists seem to forget about the other, much larger group of “freeloaders” who get even more use out of the road than cyclists: passengers in motor vehicles. What’s the difference whether I decide to leave my car at home and take someone else’s car, vs. whether I decide to leave my car at home and take my bike? In either case, my car is off the road and I’m using a vehicle on which I paid no registration or licence fees…

Ponder.

Yeah, what an appallingly ignorant statement. It would be like claiming that only parents with children are paying for public schools. Those of us without children pay through the nose for it, just like those of us who don’t drive pay through the nose for the local road system. In both cases we derive some secondary benefits from the way the system is set up, but let’s not pretend we’re paying “nothing” when in fact we’re paying a great deal more than we’re getting back in return.

I would have no problem paying an annual registration fee to license my bicycle and have it annually inspected for soundness at a set price, provided that the DOT was required to provide and maintain bike lanes on all roads and that Traffic Cops were required to police both drivers and cyclists for obstructing those lanes, causing accidents, and otherwise hampering the productive, safe flow of traffic. Sounds like the outline of a legitimate partnership.

This needs to be stated over and over again. Most gas taxes to go highways. Bicycles are not allowed on limited access highways.

Everyone pays for streets. Motor vehicles occupy far more street space per person, and cause more wear and tear on them, than do bicycles.

And, by the way, in NYC the city doesn’t even maintain the sidewalks. For pedestrians the expected institutional collapse — taxes with nothing in return — has already occured.

What about people’s dogs?

What about deer?

But the clear comparison for cyclists are pedestrians. Due to the extremely low impact of their activity on the condition of the road (or for pedestrians, sidewalks) the impact on a per person basis is next to nothing.

If anyone is worried about accounting for the fair share costs of road maintainence should look at heavy trucks, which cause orders of magnitude higher impact on roads, not cyclists.