Do any other municipalities have a similar license? I think it’s a bad idea. Just another way to try and tax people who can least afford it. I know Tucson has it’s share of rich dentists in spandex on cervelos but most of our riders are in lower income brackets. How is this license fee going to incentivise bike ridership? Do we have a say?

Karlito,

When I spoke with Matt Zoll, he said Madison, WI had a registration policy. Here is the link to their page: http://www.cityofmadison.com/trafficEngineering/bicyclingRegistration.cfm

There are very few details about it right now. I’ll try to find out more today.

I agree that this would be a disincentive to the very things they are trying to encourage.

We really need to remind people the benefits to the overall community of cycling (less traffic congestion, less wear on the roads, reduced obesity = less health care costs/less lost days of work productivity, cleaner air etc). I don’t think a small license fee would be burdonsome to most folks, but it’s the principle that it would go directly against what the municipalities are spending big $ to encourage thru bike lanes/bike blvds.

This would be like pushing with one hand and pulling with the other.

To play Devil’s Advocate –

Would haviing the license in place give cyclist a better standing in the minds of the general community about our right to use the roads and their perception of our ‘paying our way’?

Los Angeles had one and dropped it. Honolulu has one, Seattle was looking at one. Austin does not. The idea is clearly revenue driven, but sounds like a logistic nightmare to enforce. Looking for ways to increase revenue is happening in every municipality in this country. In Austin, the violation fines for cyclists are stiffer than ones for motorists. http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/court/fine_sch.htm That’s probably their veiled way of enacting and enforcing a license in my opinion.

A hilarious anecdote about the L.A. code, was that a huge percentage of riders didn’t even know about the mandated licenses (before they said bye-bye to a dumb idea.) I occasionally choose to walk the 4 miles to work rather than drive. I push the crosswalk buttons and sometimes kick the paint in the crosswalks. What’s next? Licensing my shoes?

My first thought is that this is unenforceable.

My second thought is that if this were attempts to enforce it, this could be really awesome! It could (potentially) draw more attention to bike salmon and bikestrians who aren’t sure about the rules of the road and probably don’t have or don’t care about having the proper papers.

I don’t really see a way for this to work without turning into a nightmare of interventionist behavior from local law enforcement. At the same time… I like the attention…

They should take a look at this article
http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2010/03/registering_bikes_its_no_money.html

Personally I don’t see bicycles being represented or treated equally as a transportation mode in a free society.

Adding a registration fee won’t change this. It will only make the obvious blatant neglect and abuse, even more ridiculous.

FYI in Maricopa CO the air is so bad street sweeping is almost (policy) mandatory to reduce the dust and keep withing federal mandates for air quality.

Red Star doesn’t know whether there is some subtle (or is it lazy) language in Arizona Revised Statutes that allows cities and counties to charge a fee for bicycles.

But, FYI, consider California where there is a clear authorization:

“California Vehicle Code Division 16.7 – Registration and Licensing of Bicycles”

at:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd16_7.htm

Note:

“License Requirement”

at:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d16_7/vc39002.htm

which reads:

a) A city or county may adopt a bicycle licensing ordinance or resolution providing that no resident shall operate any bicycle on any street, road, highway, or other public property within the city of county, unless such bicycle is licensed in accordance with this division.
b) Any bicycle not licensed under this division may be additionally regulated or licensed pursuant to local ordinance or may be licensed upon request of the owner.
c) It is illegal for any person to to tamper with, destroy, mutilate or alter any license indicia (marking) or registration form or to remove, alter, or mutilate the serial number, or the identifying marks of a licensing agency’s identifying symbol on any bicycle frame licensed under the provision of this division.

~~~~~~~~~~~

So, even if the City of Tucson had ironclad authority in terms of ARS to impose a fee on bikes, there is still the usual problem: set the fee “too low” and administrative costs are not covered. Set the fee “too high” and some degree of noncompliance results. Impose a high penalty on noncompliance and enforcement resources are diverted to a silly thing when important things such as 3 foot rule may be ignored. Does anyone think the City of Tucson, or any other city government, could get it “just right” especially on such a tiny, make that electron microscopic potential budget item?

‘sides…who, in their right mind, is going to plaster tacky annual stickers on their vintage restoration or their 5k Madone or Tarmac or whatever? At some point, wouldn’t the stickers weigh more than the bike?

BB’s got it on that equality point.

Even for cars, it’s been the tax on fuel that
has been the cash cow. Registration revenue
even at motor vehicle numbers is just a blip.

When we reach parity in number with cars,
then I’ll pay….and when we reach parity in
weight, I’ll pay double.

Several problems exist with this proposal, at least in my eyes.

1) The proposed $10 fee will most likely not even cover the administrative/cost of goods. There’s no way that this proposal could be a money maker for this cash-starved, fiscally-impaired city/county/state.

2) I’d be very surprised if any money that would be raised if this proposal passed, would actually be earmarked for cycling infrastructure, such as road-lining/street sweeping. It’s been clear that the city is more than willing to grab funds from any source in order to cover it’s deficit. Again, poor money management by the powers that be.

3) This really smacks of double taxation, with no additional benefits. I’m already paying income tax, real estate tax, gas tax, auto registration tax, and a ridiculously high sales tax to this city/county/state. Am I, or any of the other tax payers, going to see any benefit from this proposal, if passed.

4) I’ve got five bikes, am I going to have to license every one of them, even though I can only ride one at any one time? Yes, this same argument can be made for multiple car/RV/etc., but as a non-polluting mode of transportation, do multiple bikes for one owner really deserve to be taxed?

5) How would this be enforced? If someone comes in from out of town to ride for a few days/weeks, as many, many riders do, how would they be treated?

All in all, it seems like a bad idea proposed by yet another short-sighted local politician – one who hasn’t been able to balance a budget, nor make intelligent fiscal decisions.

Here elaborates the cake-like.com matter not only extensively but also detailly .I support the write’s cake-like.com unique point.It is useful and benefit to your daily life.You can cake-like.com go those sits to know more relate things.They are strongly recommended by friends.Personally

And for that cyclists get……what
easier tracking and retrieval of their stolen property?
equal consideration in traffic planning needs?
assurance to the public that cyclists are more astute in traffic laws?

I don’t think motorists get anything for their fees of registration.
Why spread the madness to bikes?