A license to ride?
Posted by Jonathan Maus (Editor) on October 3rd, 2007 at 9:19 am
Bernie Foster
thinks bikes should
be more highly
regulated.
(Photo: Skanner)
As bicycling continues to push its way into the mainstream here in Portland, the refrain over increased regulation — usually in the form of licensing — grows.
A few weeks back, Bernie Foster, the publisher of The Skanner, (a small weekly newspaper that “advanced the cause of the Black Press in the North Western United States”) wrote an editorial calling for cyclists to be regulated more like motor vehicle drivers.
On his long list of ideas — which included “bikeway tolls” and more separation between cars and bikes — was the always popular idea of licensing bicyclists.
Up in Seattle, one activist organization has started issuing “undrivers” licenses. Bicycle Alliance of Washington staffer (and long-distance riding legend) Kent Peterson showed his off on his blog…
Given the number of daily cyclists we have here in Portland, I wonder if something like this would take off here.
As for some sort of official, city-run licensing program, what I’ve heard from bike insiders is that regardless of whether or not licensing bicyclists is a good move, the idea just doesn’t “pencil out”. They say the administrative costs and logistics are a much larger headache than any “problem” the licensing would solve.
What do you think?
Email This Post
Possibly related posts
October 3rd, 2007 09:41
i love the Undriver License! Great fundraising idea for any of the various & sundry bikey orgs. in PDX.
As for the editorial, some of the ideas make a certain amount of sense. Others are plain baffling, and clearly spawned by a non-cycling mind. Liability insurance to ride a bike? Registering cyclists? Let's just ban bicycling altogether and be done with it...
October 3rd, 2007 09:43
I think that this is ridiculous. That's what I think.
Cycling is the last fast, efficient, free, unregulated form of transportation. It's been that way for over a hundred years and I'm not sure why all of the sudden we need the license now.
Once drivers AND cyclists have licenses, how much harder will it be for some War on Terrorâ„¢ zealot to advocate that we all have to carry IDs around all the time. The proverbial foot in the door.
Here's my question. Is this really a problem?? What will it solve? How?
Funding bike infrastructure? Not a chance. They'd have to be prohibitively expensive to do that.
It seems to me that it's a way for people to channel their anti-bike feelings, giving them some particular thing to aim for. And at the end of the day there won't be any additional police on the street to enforce it, and like oh-so-successful war on drugs, we'll only be packing the courts and jails with people who are disproportionally poor and disadvantaged.
October 3rd, 2007 09:43
One odd thing about his article is that it appears one of his biggest issues with bicycles is that cyclists follow too closely behind him? Is tailgating by cyclists really a problem? I've never heard that complaint before...
As far as toll bikeways go, we don't have a single toll road in this whole state for automobiles so it seems illogical that he wants to create a separate road system for bikes and finance it with tolls rather than road money.
I think he may be from washington because he also talks about bikes not being allowed on freeways. Other than a few stretches in the portland area bikes are allowed on oregon freeways. I've ridden the 5 from eugene to Ashland, not the nicest route but the wide shoulders make it pretty safe and effective really.
Bjorn
October 3rd, 2007 09:48
I agree it would be a headache. I've always had a concern about the anonymity that goes along with riding a bike. One of my kids was very, very nearly run down by a bicyclist at an intersection, while crossing the street with me. The rider went buzzing by, at high speed within inches of a five year old. I saw it happen as he crossed the street, following my wife, as I brought up the rear., I yelled at the bicyclist "nice stop" (there was a stop sign) and got the finger in return, as he/she carried on. Had my kid been hurt, the bicyclist could just as easily have run off. Had the bike been a car, I would have had make model and plate number. Make and model are very difficult to get with a bike leaving a scene, and plate number is impossible.
But affixing a plate and number to a bike, in a way that would do any good at all, is impossible to imagine.
It is an interesting issue.
"Undrivers Licenses" might be a start. But the whole thing seems way too cumbersom to ever work, to me.
I think we may just have to continue to hope folks will be kind and courteous to one another, and stop if the worst does happen.
October 3rd, 2007 09:50
Oneof the proposals in the Skanner editorial aren't so extreme. In particular, I would really welcome law enforcement paying more attention to bicycles, as long as it included car-bicycle interactions as well. It seems like bikes just aren't a priority for traffic enforcement, regardless of whether it's the motorist or cyclist that acts dangerously.
Many of the Skanner's proposals IMHO go against the fundamental common-law right for people to have access to the roads. And the user-fee approach just doesn't wash; it's bad for business as well as public interest.
October 3rd, 2007 09:53
I will never carry a license to ride a bike. It's a moronic idea.
October 3rd, 2007 10:00
I'd imagine bicycle liability insurance would cost about somewhere $10 a year—about $9.75 for administrative costs and about $0.25 to fund payouts from the system.
October 3rd, 2007 10:04
I agree - bad idea. Where this type of thinking frequently originates ( I have not read the article) is with drivers resenting cyclist using the roads "for free" - after all, drivers have to pay motor vehicle registration fees plus individual drivers license fees. It's always about the money. Be prepared for the battle to come - the more cyclist there are, the more likely someone is going to see them as a source of taxable revenue.
October 3rd, 2007 10:06
The best as aspect of cycling is that once you have a bike it is FREE, and therefore available to every person no matter what level of income they have. Licensing and insuring bikes will take bikes out of the hands of the people who need free transportation the most.
October 3rd, 2007 10:07
from the editorial:
Last year saw the suggestion that bicyclists ought to be able to use freeways. Surely that was about the dumbest idea to date.
"Dumbest idea to date"? Message to Bernie Foster: ***deleted by moderator*** :P Really, what a load of codswollop. Everybody stand back, I'm about to prepare my six-paragraph "editorial" on why children must be kept on leashes in public at all times, and why users of public libraries must start paying for special page-turning mits lest a papercut leads to the untimely death of an as-yet-unknown hemophiliac...
October 3rd, 2007 10:11
It could be worse. Here in Baker City I was disciplined for locking my bike to a pole in front of City Hall. When they found out they could not cite me for doing so, they removed the pole! Then they fired me, citing bike parking as a "performance problem." They also threatened to cite a City Councilor for parking her bike in front of City Hall (not even locked!) in support.
October 3rd, 2007 10:12
I would rather that everyone have to re-take the written test when they renew their driver's license or Oregon ID card.
This isn't just a problem with bikes. Everyone seems to have forgotten that driving isn't a right, it's a privilege. Same thing applies to riding a bike. If you use the roads, you've got a responsibility to ride or drive in a safe manner. It doesn't happen.
Peds and skateboarders and (and, and, and...) all the other road users also seem to have forgotten that they are sharing the road with others.
We get on here and complain about how the other road users are oblivious to anything outside their little box (or head, or i-pod), but we're just as guilty of it. No amount of licensing is going to fix that, folks.
October 3rd, 2007 10:20
He wants cyclists to ride on the left?
Here's my counter-proposal. All would-be motorists must put in 100 miles cycling on the roads before receiving a driver's licenses.
October 3rd, 2007 10:26
I agree with Kristen. I see so many fellow cyclists who ride the wrong way down the street(often on a street with no bike lane) or who try and pummel through ped traffic on a sidewalk that I think if people knew what was expected of them, maybe they would behave differently.
Also, if bicyclists need licences then lets take the time to fix the current licensing program. There are so many drivers who have no clue what is expected/required of them, if they had to retake their test every 5 years that would thin some out as well as educating the rest. Also, it could serve as a huge financial addition to actually pay for roads and all the other services motorists use but don't pay for.
Also, if cyclists were licensed users of the road, it seems to me that we would have a more legitimate claim to it in the eyes of motorists. We could use this as a means to increase bicycle infrastructure, instead of viewing it as way to limit cyclists.
October 3rd, 2007 10:34
Idiocy.
There are much better transportation issues to focus energy on than this.
License to Bike? Asinine.
October 3rd, 2007 10:35
Kristen makes some good points. What I hear from drivers is that they are more upset that cyclists don't follow the laws - going through red lights, weaving in between cars, blowing through stop signs. I have been told by some drivers that their frustration comes from fear of hitting us. Some cyclists can be very unpredictable which can cause frustration not just with drivers but other cyclists.
And then let's not forget the lovely one finger salute that some cyclists tend to give to drivers - makes we want to scream - it is so unnecessary and only hurts the cycling community.
Enough of my rant. Janis
October 3rd, 2007 10:43
# 12, 14, 16 above.
Yea, some cyclist act like numbskulls - that bugs me too. But do they need a license to show they can ride a bike? c'mon. There's plenty of (auto) evidence on the road everyday to prove that idea doesn't work. Cyclist, like drivers, are free to do what they know is wrong because people make bad choices. The solution - already in place, is ticket bad cyclist who break the law just like motorist. We do not need a new beauracracy to regulate bike jerks.
October 3rd, 2007 10:47
Licensing bicycles provides some benefits to cyclists in enhanced protection from theft. Bicycles are licensed in China, so it can be done. It would also obviously eliminate the anonymity that asshole cyclists thrive on when they violate the rights of their fellow citizens. I don't think there's any violation of the cyclist's rights in requiring bicycles to be licensed.
Licensing cyclists is a different matter. It creates all sorts of problems that proponents of licensing haven't thought out. For example, are all cyclists required to carry a license? Even 5 year olds? Or is there some age at which a cyclist must become licensed? Any such age demarcation would of course be entirely arbitrary. Suppose, for example, that all cyclists over the age of 10 must be licensed. Why would a 9 year old not require a license, but a 10 year old would? Of even greater concern is the transformation of cycling from a constitutionally protected form of transportation to a permissive form of transportation that can be revoked by the state. The right to travel is a fundamental liberty that will be truncated to the right to walk if the states decide to require cyclists to be licensed.
Of course, we wouldn't even be talking about these issues if there weren't so many self-righteous assholes on bikes to begin with (see Post 4).
October 3rd, 2007 10:47
Janis-
I got the finger yesterday from some two wheeled genious who decided to blow through a loaded four way stop without a hint of brake...no helmet...HANDS IN POCKETS (yes, he was riding no handed through the intersection)...when I almost hit him and honked, he pulled out his middle finger...
my passenger had to show IMMENSE restraint from confronting him and his blatant idiocy..
October 3rd, 2007 10:49
even though many of his ideas seem silly, i do like this one:
"• Close some streets to cars."
of course he follows that with: "• Close some heavily used car routes to bikes."
October 3rd, 2007 10:56
"They say the administrative costs and logistics are a much larger headache than any “problem†the licensing would solve."
Yippee for bureaucracy !!!!!
October 3rd, 2007 10:58
Andy, Post 13 wrote:
Here's my counter-proposal. All would-be motorists must put in 100 miles cycling on the roads before receiving a driver's licenses.
Requiring bicycling as a means of learning the rules of the road, prior to being granted a license to operate a motor vehicle, would be a very safe way to transition young people into the responsibility of driving. It would also create greater awareness of cyclists, and our needs on the road.
Of course, I'd require far more than 100 miles. More like one year of cycling (probably measured in hours, as they do with pilots) before being eligible for a driver's license.
October 3rd, 2007 11:13
I agree with some of Bernie Foster's ideas and the spirit of his editorial. Overall, I don't think his suggested changes are very practical. If he adjusted some of his ideas he could be a little closer to a real solution.
I'd ask him to consider that "a high percentage" of all cyclist over the age of 18 have a drivers license, liability insurance, follow the rules of the road, and pay road taxes.
October 3rd, 2007 11:17
I don't think there's any violation of the cyclist's rights in requiring bicycles to be licensed.
But there is plenty of room to do such licensing the wrong way. Plates, for instance, which would be required if we're talking about removing anonymity: How do I mount the thing and make sure it doesn't get ripped off when I park my bike outside somewhere for use by someone who doesn't have a license for a particular bike of theirs? Or do I take it with me? But wait, it's a license for the *bike*, so how are they sure I'm not swapping it between my bikes, or sharing it with my friends - random stop-and-check scenarios with cops?
Here's the thing: not a lot happens when some random citizen reports a particular car's plate number for a non-ticketed traffic violation; rather, the penalty-dealing is typically left to instances where an officer observes the violation. Which is exactly how it already works with bikes. Now I know that there are a couple of cranks in this town who might go as far as going around with a notepad and writing down the plate number of every bike blowing through a stop sign they can see, but otherwise...really, what's the real benefit of licensing the bike? It doesn't actually solve anything. It's a waste. You'd likely see more progress if we'd call the scofflaws names.
October 3rd, 2007 11:20
Rixter #18
Maybe we should change the name from Drivers License to Roadway Users License and be done with it.
Kids under the age of 16 would need to be under some type of restriction. I haven't thought this out to far...
October 3rd, 2007 11:24
In a diffrent context president G.W.Bush once said something like,'They hate us for our fredoms'
Surely this is an April Fools style joke. I almost believed it. Lars Larson, a local talk show host, believes a tax on bicycle tyres would help cyclists pay for the roads they use. This point of view betrays what mysery habitual car drivers must be in.
October 3rd, 2007 11:26
JT -
Your passenger had to show "immense restraint" because someone gave 'em a little bird? LOL. What kind of hair-trigger people do you hang out with?
More importantly, all this talk of licenses has overlooked the most important license of all: the license to ill. Will I need one to continue to rock the mic while I bike?
Weigh in on that one.
October 3rd, 2007 11:28
Hey Jonathan, what's the big deal? You allow JT to call somebody a name and you don't allow for send-up of Bernie Foster's unsubstantiated and unsupported claim of something to be a "dumb idea"? "Dumb" is a word people use when they're trying to be cruel and willfully disrespectful of an opposing point of view, often without reason.
My point was to stress the fact that the whole piece is precious little other than grabbing a recent headline and pushing generic, largely unreasoned rhetoric that vaguely ties back to it. Bernie Foster's editorial suggests little real understanding of cycling as a valid means of transportation, period, and yet pretends to speak authoritatively. It's ridiculous filler.
October 3rd, 2007 11:30
N.I.K., a friend and I witnessed a drunk driver plow into a parked car, get out, and start running. We followed him home, called the cops, and the cops arrested him based on our I.D. of the guy. Sure, they're not going to do that for a minor traffic violation, but they will do it if the situation warrants it. A guy on a bike (I won't dignify him with the term "cyclist") who runs somebody down, severely injures the person, and then proceeds to flee would be one of those instances where the cops would be interested in identifying the miscreant.
October 3rd, 2007 11:32
Brian, post 25:
Licensing all users of the roadway means that the right to travel has been abolished.
October 3rd, 2007 11:34
This is an idea that has been brought up off and on for many, many years. It is impractical, implausible, and riles people up every time it is brought up again.
Have no fear. As has been pointed out, the logistics of it are nightmarish enough to keep it from ever happening.
Have a cup of tea and relax.
October 3rd, 2007 11:37
A guy on a bike (I won't dignify him with the term "cyclist") who runs somebody down, severely injures the person, and then proceeds to flee would be one of those instances where the cops would be interested in identifying the miscreant.
Okay rixtir, I follow you. But that's *one* scenario, and in this case, applicable if and only if the guy (or gal -plenty of law-breakin' ladies out there, let's not forget 'em!) is in a condition to successfully flee after colliding with another human being. All else that comes to mind which would warrant follow-up action following positive ID would be if someone fled a robbery or physical attack on a bike, and while those are certainly possible, they just don't seem particularly likely.
October 3rd, 2007 11:40
Oops, submitted early. To conclude my previous post: Any ID that's going to happen in these latter two scenarios that might lead to apprehension is likely to be based on physical description because someone's actually paid witness to the suspect leaving the scene at a lower velocity than a speeding getaway car.
October 3rd, 2007 11:43
"All else that comes to mind which would warrant follow-up action following positive ID would be if someone fled a robbery or physical attack on a bike, and while those are certainly possible, they just don't seem particularly likely."
Actually I hear a lot about how a bike was used as a get away vehicle in a robbery or such.
Happens more than you would imagine.
October 3rd, 2007 11:44
I think a better place to start would be to enforce existing laws and increase education to drivers and cyclists. I've found that a number of drivers don't even know that cyclists can get ticketed. There are lots of drivers that don't ride and riders that don't drive. If we had a better understanding of each other, I think there would be a little more respect between us.
October 3rd, 2007 11:49
Rixtir #30,
A motor vehicle and a bike are the same thing, no? They both use the road. It seems the same rules could apply.
I'm suggesting that if you want to operate a vehicle on a public roadway would need an operators license.
You would not loose your right to travel any differntly than you do now, in regards to operatinig motor vehicle.
October 3rd, 2007 11:51
It won't be long before they put RFID chips in our tires and associate them to our credit cards. Then with a reader at strategic intersections, they can track everywhere we go anyway...
October 3rd, 2007 11:52
pushkin-
no hair trigger...my friend was having a bad day and the response from an overtly rude and idiotic rider was a bit more than he could handle at the time...he races too and just couldn't believe the stupidity.
I talked him off the ledge (drove the other way).
I agree with him though, the guy on the bike could use a good quarter panel to the face to smarten him up...
sorry, I've got no response to your Beastie Boy..
as for licensing...drivers licenses don't remove careless drivers from the road, bike licensing would have the same lack of effect unfortunately.
October 3rd, 2007 11:53
as for licensing...drivers licenses don't remove careless drivers from the road, bike licensing would have the same lack of effect unfortunately.
Well-said. Everybody, remember this line. :)
October 3rd, 2007 11:54
link to Skanner editorial not currently working
October 3rd, 2007 12:14
Brian E, Post 36:
Actually, there is no right to drive. It's a privilege, and can be revoked. There is a right to travel, but what happens to that right if it becomes a licensed activity, subject to revocation? I would argue that the right is lost.
Geoff, Post 37:
They're already putting chips in passports, I think driver's licenses will be next with the REAL ID Act. Scans of everybody will be in place within your lifetime, my friend. They're already recording everybody in Manhattan, RFID chips will just be the next level.
JT, Post 38:
The last time somebody flipped me off, I issued an invitation to repeat it to my face. If they can't back it up-- and most can't-- they should keep their fingers in their pockets, where they can't get broken. So I sympathize with your friend's desire to "discuss" it with the lad. I also agree, that sadly, it's going to take a few fatal collisions before everybody else wakes up.
October 3rd, 2007 12:29
A dollar a pound. I would be more than happy to support a "road user fee" if everyone were charged a dollar a pound per year for their vehicles. Even then, I believe bicycles would be overcharged based on their impact to the roadways, but I'd be willing to make that hard compromise for the greater good.
October 3rd, 2007 12:32
Donna, shouldn't a road user fee also include a carbon tax? Maybe the base fee is a dollar a pound, with additional fees based on carbon emissions?
October 3rd, 2007 12:33
Oh, yeah, and driver licensing has definitely made drivers and driving more safe in Oregon, and we all know that ALL vehicle operators carry valid licenses and insurance at all times...
Bernie, give me a brake.
October 3rd, 2007 12:38
One problem with bikes is most people learn to ride them when they're about 6, and no one ever teaches them anything more. If there were a safety class like the one you take when you learn to ride a motorcycle, with some publicly displayed notice of completion, then other users of the road could distinguish riders who are trying to ride responsibly from the bozos. Hopefully, negative attention would be focused on the bozos instead of on all bikers, and social pressure would persuade most people to particpate, whereas the threat of legal coercion makes us want to resist.
October 3rd, 2007 12:56
Rixtir,
Sorry friend, I should leave this alone but...
I believe that bicycles and motor vehicles should be considered the same on our roadways. So this is how I would like to paraphrase your reply.
"Actually, there is no right to drive (or operate a bicycle). It's a privilege, and can be revoked."
October 3rd, 2007 13:05
I agree that they should be considered the same, and I agree that they should be subject to (more or less) the same rules. And I think that dangerous drivers should be removed from the roads.
Should dangerous cyclists also be removed from the roads? That's where this is going. Maybe it's not a bad thing-- maybe some people just shouldn't be operating vehicles, period, regardless of their vehicle of choice.
But we're still talking about truncating, if not losing altogether, a fundamental liberty. And "all users of the roadway" includes pedestrians, so if we license them as well (and I can't imagine why we would, except to further grease the skids as we slide down that slippery slope towards a police state), then there is no longer a right to travel.
October 3rd, 2007 13:09
i would consider thinking about registering bicyclists when the state and federal government starts reimbursing me for oil subsidies based on percentage of petrol used by passenger vehicles. i would HAPPILY register as a dedicated bike commuter then.
October 3rd, 2007 13:11
I went to school at UC Davis, CA. All student's bikes are required to be licensed. Davis is ahead of Portland as far as being a bike friendly city. Is there a correlation there?! Take a look at the information on the city's bike map.
http://www.taps.ucdavis.edu/bicycle/general/bikemap.pdf
October 3rd, 2007 13:18
JT -
Got it. No hair trigger, but maybe he has SRAM leap frog?
For the rest of the bikeportland readers -
I have ruminated further on this complicated matter and now have some questions that need to be answered by the licensing cognoscenti:
Will cargo bikes need to be licensed with the equivelant of a CDL?
Will a trailer need a separate plate like a U-Haul trailer?
Will hipsters need learner's permits for their new fixed-gears?
If I'm carrying bacardi 151 in my bag, will I need a flammable materials on board sign like trucks have?
And the most burning question of all: Will tarted up fixed-gears with [insert your color here] Velocity deep-Vs need a parade float license and permit?
October 3rd, 2007 13:30
hey ujelang,
i went to davis too. that licensing you speak of was for the bike not the rider. i never registered and never suffered any consequences so i really wonder if it was required.
i also think its unfair to compare davis to portland as far as bike cities. Davis is what - 55,000 people? mostly students that disappear during the summer? yes davis has some GREAT biking infrastructure that portland could definitely learn from but its like comparing apples to oranges.
October 3rd, 2007 13:32
"One problem with bikes is most people learn to ride them when they're about 6, and no one ever teaches them anything more. "
You bring up an interesting point geezer, but this isn't a problem exclusive to bikes. Change the word bikes to cars and 6 to 16 and this statement is equally true. Just like with cars, it's hard to see a one time training course having a lasting effect on who rides responsibly and who doesn't.
It's more a matter of experience. I first learned to ride when I was 5. I was a daredevil and took greater risks as I got older. I started mellowing out in my early-20s as I started to commute regularly. I consider myself a pretty safe and responsible rider and I attribute that mostly to my experiences such as my physical capcity to determine my speed, safe routes and the threat of a fine if I break the law.
October 3rd, 2007 13:39
I think Snapper and Ujelang are both referring to licensing of student bikes by the campus, and not by the city. Many universities have these licensing requirements in place, and they are to aid campus police in theft prevention and return of stolen bikes, rather than to police students.
October 3rd, 2007 13:42
I took my bicycle through DEQ after my tags expired and it failed cause there was visible oil on the chain. Got a trip permit good for 21 days and will need to fix the problem. The cost of renewing tags for my bicycle just went up to, but at least my insurance rate went down since I'm over 25.
I cant WAIT!!! :)
October 3rd, 2007 14:04
hey! lets stereotype every person who rides a fixed gear bike. we really should be stereotyping the mtb riders since they're usually the ones riding the wrong way down the street.
gimme a break.
October 3rd, 2007 14:12
licensing is about public safety. motor vehicles are licensed because driving errors can have disastrous public safety consequences. Nothing in Mr. Foster's editorial or in real life would justify such a bicylist licensing system due to the much, much lower inherent public safety risks associated with bicycling.
October 3rd, 2007 14:12
that should be 'motorists are licensed'...
October 3rd, 2007 14:14
Morgan's DEQ trip brings up another important matter not to be taken lightly.
If we register bikes with DEQ will hippies need to pass a special patchouli emissions test?
Is this discriminatory? Or is it like mandating fuel efficiency and emissions standards for larger vehicles?
October 3rd, 2007 14:15
Hey here we go! This is a great idea. Let's give the Portland Police one more reason to arbitrarily hand out tickets.
I might be down with a licensing system to work while biking, but just for you average Joe/Jane to have to pass a test to ride a bike? Thanks for the idea, but no thanks.
I'm pretty sure this would severely discourage anyone from getting on a bike. Major emphasis on severely.
October 3rd, 2007 14:15
Couple of things to remember: if you do dumb things on a bike you are subject to the laws of physics...pretty unforgiving.
And, as I recall, when you are under 30 years old, many laws appear to be optional. I'm over 60 and rarely "stop" at stop signs (i.e put my foot down as per the law)...its a stupid law. I do stop at most red lights as I found that if I don't "drive" my bike like its a car, I start "riding" my car like its a bike. Yikes.
More rules, laws, lisences, enforcement, etc. are a waste of money. Only education and social pressure can change behavior, which at times is less than optimal.
Most of these proposals to license, control, etc. bicyclists are the result of frustrated motorists, who remind me of guys in the 70s who were threatened by the Women's movement and started "Men's Liberation," apparently overlooking the fact that they already had most of the power.
Remember Bernie, et.al. I can be in the bike lane along side you or I can be in my car in front of you. Bike lanes are actually for motorists...they get the bikes out of the regular traffic lane.
Last...be sure and take the lane whenever you can. 6 bikes = a slower, safer street, a defacto bike "boulevard."
October 3rd, 2007 14:26
i call taking the lane traffic calming. making mr. yuppie impatient wait a few more moments before he can get his latte is what its all about. whether on my bike or the rare occasion when i drive my car (which subsidizes my road usage) i always take my time because i know it annoys other drivers. the honest truth. people are in a hurry too much.
October 3rd, 2007 14:33
Including people who run stop signs and red lights while on their bikes. ya know?
October 3rd, 2007 14:48
I like the dollar per pound idea and the carbon emissions too. Since weather causes more wear and tear on the roads than bikes I think we should tax bikes no more than we tax the weather.
I'll license my bikes or license myself to ride when GWB ice skates on a frozen lake in hell with Dick Cheney.
October 3rd, 2007 14:57
On the "cyclists paying for roads" front:
Do not let people get away with the claim that cyclists don't pay for roads! To the best of my knowledge, fuel taxes barely keep up with repairing wear caused by motor vehicles, if even that much. Everyone who uses money pays for roads, through income and property taxes. The only cyclists not contributing are homeless and jobless, basically.
A few years ago, I looked into what fuel would cost if the fuel taxes paid for 100% of transportation infrastructure. Various studies took into account different factors, such as whether the landscaping accompanying streets were included. The figures ranged from: gas costing TWO AND A HALF to about SEVEN DOLLARS MORE per gallon due to the needed taxes. These studies were all pre-Iraq Invasion.
There are also plenty of "hidden" costs of auto-related infrastructure that would not be caused by cyclists: health care costs due to diseases caused by pollution, loss of productivity from traffic jams & aforementioned health problems, military support for petrol lines and oil companies, bailouts to automakers... I can't even remember them all.
October 3rd, 2007 15:01
Lenny-
I suggest you brush up on your "laws"...there are no laws that says a foot must be placed on the ground....urban myth...officers are looking for cessation of forward momentum...learn to do a track stand and you'll be fine.
Toddistic-
you're not single-handedly going to slow down humanity...its a futile effort.
October 3rd, 2007 15:04
This is totally unfair. As a freqent walker, I feel left out. We should also be licensed in order to use the right of way. Reckless walkers are a menace. I personally have been rear ended on several occassions.
October 3rd, 2007 15:10
JT -
Actually I think toddistic is trying to single-gearedly slow down humanity...a futile effort maybe, but worth applause on account of the limited gear inches.
October 3rd, 2007 15:17
Walker Texas Ranger -
I agree with you that all who frequently walk on or near the right of way should be licensed - as a matter of public health. When you were rear ended did you happen to be walking on 82nd?
BTW I love your show!
October 3rd, 2007 15:23
Toddistic-
I'm with you! Just driving the speed "limit" seems to be enough to tick people off. Oh, and using a gas efficient speed to take off from a stop gets them up in arms. Literally...I've seen people throw up their arms in their cars.
JT-
futile? maybe. fun? you bet!
October 3rd, 2007 15:41
oh, I never questioned the fun of it.. :)
October 3rd, 2007 17:04
Bernie Foster forgot to add that all bikes should be equipped with steel cages and motors to make them more efficient so they can get out of drivers' way. And they should cost tens of thousands of dollars each.
I wasn't angry until I read this.
p.s. I agree with Kristen (#12) as far as the retaking the test. I think both written and road tests need to be retaken every few years. This alone will help keep many unsafe drivers off the road.
October 3rd, 2007 17:59
oh its fun, coming back from my inlaws in salem and driving 55mph in the twilliger curves (5 mph faster than the posted speed limit) and i was being tailgated and flashed with highbeams.
it makes my day, and yes, you are correct, i am not going to stop humanity but at maybe i get one person to question why they're in such a hurry i've made a difference. or using my lane taking on my bike to stop traffic to allow a woman with a child to cross a crosswalk. it all matters in the small stuff.
October 3rd, 2007 20:00
In the spirit of saying-what's-on-your-mind-when-it-comes-to-rights-to-the-road, this is my $0.02.
My counterproposal is that in an accident the percentage of fault should be multiplied by the share of the total vehicle weight to arrive at the share of cost to be borne by the vehicle operator. Example: Suppose a Chevy Suburban (4000 lbs) and bicycle (200 lbs--including operator) are considered equally at fault in a collision. Damage to the Suburban is $500. Damage to the bike is $1000. Total loss is $1500. Total mass is 4200 lbs. Each pound is responsible for $0.36. The Suburban is therefore responsible for $1429 and the bike for $71. The Suburban operator owes the cyclist $929.
The reason for this is that the destructive energy of a projectile in a collision is proportional to its mass. If we want to take it further, the destructive energy is also propertional to the square of the projectile's speed. Speed is harder to judge, a priori, but courts should also consider speed.
Part 2. Vehicles above a certain weight are to be operated by people with a commercial license, and people with commercial licenses should be subject to random drug screens. The screening is to be paid for by a somewhat elevated license fee. Pick the fee so that the average operator is screen once every three years. The threshold vehicle weight for this should be somewhere in the range of a ton. There is no excuse for operating a vehicle heavier than about a ton as a commuting option. These vehicles are far more powerful than can be justified by ordinary urban use, and it is way too easy to hurt someone with a simple mistake.
October 4th, 2007 02:00
The claim that licensing bikes won't work is nonsense. Motorcycles have been licensed for years and we deal with it. If the government passed a license plate law the bike manufaturers would produce license plate holders because there would be demand for them.
And it would be rediculously easy to write criteria. For example, any bicycle operated on any street with a posted speed of 20Mph or over must be licensed. Pretty simple, and one that removes just about all children and their bikes (or are you in the habit of allowing your 8 year old to ride their bike on 35Mph streets?) from the requirement.
What this problem addresses is simple and obvious - it's blowing stop signs and red lights. That's the single thing that any biker can do that will cause a driver to start frothing. And it is incredibly stupid. Right now if a cop looks over and sees a biker blow a stop sign, by the time the cop can chase him down he's gone. Bikers know this which is why they do it. If the bike required to display a license plate like a motorcycle is, the cop would just look at the biker blowing the stop sign and note the license number then send him a ticket in the mail. Pretty simple.
No driver wants to pull out into an intersection after looking both ways and have some idiot bicyclist who is ignoring the stop sign or red light smack into his fender. It has nothing to do with the minimal damage to the car - the driver has to now spend hours filling out reports and forms and all the rest of that. Besides being delayed from going where he was going. If bikers want to kill the move to license bicycles they know what to do - stop blowing through stop signs and red lights. Start obeying those traffic control devices. Most drivers don't mind bikes ignoring the other devices - like right turn only lanes and suchlike - but every time a biker runs a red light or a stop sign it is just increasing the pressure for licensing bikes.
October 4th, 2007 08:11
Licensing bicycles proved to be too costly and unwieldy for Portland and many other cities in the US, and those cities left off with bike licensing years ago. What makes Mr. Foster, or anyone else, think that licensing bicycle *riders* will be any easier?
I suggest that another real reason many drivers are annoyed by the very sight of bicycle riders, especially adults on bikes, is the freedom that picture represents.
People who ride everywhere not only don't pay licensing fees and insurance, they also tend to live a little lower on the financial food chain and as a result may not feel the same pressure to "keep up" with an outdated version of the American Dream. I know that this logic is a big part of MY bigger picture. In fact, several friends who drive everywhere have admitted they often envy me because to their eye, my life looks simpler and a little freer than theirs. And in many ways it is.
For those of us who have choices in life, choosing to eschew automobile ownership makes a huge statement to those who still drive.
October 4th, 2007 11:35
people prove over and over that they're not willing to be accountable for their own actions. If licensing cyclist helps create a system of forced accountability where there currently is none, I'm for it. Hell, require plates on all bikes for road use and stick some "red light" camera's all around SE (and wherever else); maybe we could then afford to pay teachers a decent salary.
Toddistic and Shana - your comments make you appear selfish. I know taking a lane is appropriate in many scenarios, but doing it just to slow people down is a totally selfish act, no matter how you guise it (traffic calming). If you choose to ride because of the freedom, and you're limiting the freedom of others by intentionally slowing them down, well you're a hypocrite aren't you?
October 4th, 2007 12:58
No Sean, I'm not a hypocrite. I'm a law abiding citizen (LOL). Driving the speed limit as required by the law does not make me selfish. Most car drivers exceed the posted speed limits or what is safe driving under the conditions.
October 4th, 2007 13:01
Secondly Sean, a bicylce licensing program is not going to generate revenue. It is to administratively heavy and your agruement that we would be able to pay teachers a decent salary. Maybe if we weren't throwing hundreds of millions of dollars into an infrastructure that causes health problems, pollution and destroys community we could pay people a decent wage.
October 4th, 2007 13:28
Hell, require plates on all bikes for road use and stick some "red light" camera's all around SE (and wherever else); maybe we could then afford to pay teachers a decent salary.
You're suggesting that we spend a ton of cash for deterrents which in turn fail at their primary purpose and then reap the revenue of said failure to help counter-balance the shortfall in part generated by such expenditure in the first place. This is the least convincing argument for a licensing program I've seen yet.
October 4th, 2007 13:38
A few grouchy motorists are not going to get a licensing regime enacted for cyclists. It's really that simple.
For those of you who drive and have some sort of chip on your shoulder about cyclists: Get over it. We're not going anywhere. And there are more and more of us every day. And yes, our transportation choice *is* morally superior to your terrorist-funding, hazardous air pollutant and greenhouse gas-spewing, peak-oil causing, and unsustainable choice. But you can still be our friends - you'll wisen up eventually. See you on *our* roads!
October 4th, 2007 14:17
Once again a bunch of motorists come on here and act like nobody in cars ever makes a moving violation.
The answer to cyclists doing ignorant things is rider education. Traffic school for bike violations is good for this. It should be in the schools too, even if it is a one day thing like what CCC does. PSAs on television, radio, and on billboards would help, and it would help if all of it were available in Spanish as well. I really think a lot of peole aren't obeying the laws because they don't know what they are.
I am not saying that the bike population doesn't have it's fair share of traffic scofflaws,but I bet it is probably about the same as the percentage of motorists that are traffic scofflaws.
Motorists need to be educated about cyclists as well, as many of them don't think bikes are allowed on the street in the first place and obviously they are. They don't understand that it is legal for a bike to take a lane if the road is too narrow for a bike and a car to pass, and they don't understand that even if there is a bike lane it is proper preceedure for a bike to signal for a left, get to the left lane and make a left turn.
The biggest problem with licensing is that it would cost money, money that an indigent or even working poor person may not be able to afford. A bike costs much less than a car AND much less than public transit as well. It is important that bicycles be kept accessable by all, not just for the priviledged.
October 4th, 2007 14:27
a.O., the biggest chips on shoulders in this town belong to all the dickheads on bikes who have no regard for anybody but themselves, and then flip off their victims as they ride away. Ted, post 74 is right-- if the State one day decides to rein cyclists in, it will be entirely the doing of the ever-growing number of dickheads on bikes, and not a "few grouchy motorists."
October 4th, 2007 14:36
I disagree on both of your assertions, rixter. I got screamed at by a motorist just the other day to "Get the [eff] off the road!" All I was doing was ridin. If we're going to decide based on anecdotal evidence, we can have a shoulder chip pissing contest all day. I don't know what happened in Ted's incidence, but if he's really going to judge all people on bikes by one person, then we're never going to get anywhere.
And your second statement is pure speculation. All we've got now is a few grouchy motorists. Skidmark makes the point much better in #81, above. If we're going to make Portland a better place, let's focus on *people* who break important safety rules, not this antagonistic cyclists vs motorists mindset.
October 4th, 2007 14:46
I think you know I'm not in a cyclist vs. motorist mindset.
I see cyclists behaving like dickheads everywhere I go in town. I rarely see motorists behaving the same way, and there are many, many more motorists in this town. And I say that as a cyclist who had some dickhead motorist squeeze between lanes to pass me-- literally over the lane divider, between me and the car next to me-- just because I was riding legally in the lane.
I have never seen a motorist pass another car on the right, then make a left turn across the path of the car they just passed. I have seen cyclists do that. I have never seen a motorist blow through a stop light, forcing other motorists to screech to a halt, and then cut off a Max train at the next inters4ection, and flip the train operator off when the train operator sounds the horn. I have seen a cyclist do that. I see dickhead moves like that all the time downtown, and it's always somebody on a bike, and rarely somebody in a car. Now factor in that bikes represent 4% of the transportation in this town, and you might begin to understand that there is a serious problem with cyclist behavior in this and every other cycling town I've heard about.
And none of what I've said negates SKiDmark's observation about the need for education.
October 4th, 2007 14:46
rixtir and a.O are both wrong.
The biggest chips on shoulders belong to the road improvement crews who leave rock debris behind when their work is done.
October 4th, 2007 14:52
Maybe everybody in our society needs to chill.
Anyway, I think as bicycles become an ever-increasing part of our transportation mix, the dysfunctional behavior that we're currently witnessing will become a hindrance to bicycling, and will have to be addressed.
October 4th, 2007 15:45
Now factor in that bikes represent 4% of the transportation in this town, and you might begin to understand that there is a serious problem with cyclist behavior in this and every other cycling town I've heard about.
No, rixtir, it's bigger than that. There's a serious problem with *dickheads*. There are two kinds of dickheads: those who want to engage in a particular activity and completely disregard the practical and extant legal parameters for said activity, and then there those who want to engage in said activity and not bother to consider the aforementioned parameters. To put it another way, the Don't Give a Damns and the Don't Care to Learn Hows. Through egotism, laziness, or a combination of the two, they have a habit of making things hard for everybody else.
You notice it so much with bikes because d% of 4% is still a big enough number out of a city the size of Portland to make these folks really stand out. I readily assure you there are even more of them out there than this fraction of a percentage, and that the number will only rise as cycling continues to become more popular. The fact of the matter is that most of these people are certifiable pieces of crap *before* they get on a bike, behind the wheel of a car, to the bottom of several pints of beer, or behind the trigger of a gun. The rest of us need to be vehemently anti-dickhead to buck the trend, and that means setting the example, NOT spouting hard-headed reactionary sentiment, because that's one thing that doesn't do anything other than move one one step closer to actually being in the opposing camp to begin with. Whether it's Mike D. Motorist justifying enforcement of traffic laws on cyclists because it ANNOYS him (instead of for the sake of preventing bodily harm on any parties involved) or Josephine Q. Bikely damning those oil-burning car-drivin' jagoffs to hell for all eternity, NEITHER ACCOMPLISHES JACK. An approach of educating people -not just on how to use the road, but on *why* you have to make it a point to find out about things, think, and understand them in a context extending beyond oneself- is much more productive than vindictive bullcrap disguised as some quick-fix solution. There's been an awful lot of that for all walks of dickheads over the years and there's still a hideous number of them out there.
October 4th, 2007 15:45
I know you're not in a us/them mindset. I just don't think it's wise to point fingers at only one group.
I also know that your observations regarding the respective incidence of, um, dickhead behavior rates of motorists and cyclists are different than mine. I see plenty of people in both transportation modes acting like that. That's bad. Needs to stop. Education. Agreed.
There are motorists all over the road exhibiting dysfunctional behavior. That also needs to be addressed but largely is not being. That leads me to believe that licensing/increased regulation of cyclists is a pretty low priority for the State. And I think that's as it should be.
When they figure out how to "reign in" people running red lights in motor vehicles (see it every day downtown and in Sellwood), people going well above the speed limit (also every day), driving with suspended licenses or drunk (all the time), and people treating cyclists like to much trash to be run over (almost every week there's a driver-fault near miss posted here), I think maybe then we'll have a government capable of effectively regulating cyclist behavior. Don't hold your breath for that.
October 4th, 2007 16:05
Once again, I completely agree with N.I.K.'s well-considered and well-spoken take on things...
October 4th, 2007 16:06
Not leaving you out, a.O., but I think we disagree to some extent about personal observations. Feel free to convince me otherwise downtown sometime, though.
October 5th, 2007 00:40
What do I think, Bernie? I think you have your head up your ***.
I agree with Andy #13. People should be required to bike commute every work day for a month before they open their pie holes. Until then, shut it.
October 5th, 2007 10:24
Why not get licensed and taxed like cars? Since certain folks in Oregon get all worked up about us not paying "our share" of that 1% we get, let's give in...
Cyclists will gladly pay 1% of what car owners pay in licensing fees. So we'll bite the bullet and pony up $0.60 every two years for each bike we own. Personally, I am going to get hosed for $1.80 under this scheme.
Since we don't pay any gasoline taxes for our human powered machines, I'll pay a $1.00 tax on each tire and a quarter for each tube I buy. That way the state gleans about $10.00 to pay for the deep indentations I put in the macadam each year.
So let's pay "our share" and then very loudly trumpet the fact that we do so and in doing so, they lose the "moral argument" that pay gives you the right-of-way. Then, lets do everything the law allows bikes to do since we are fully paid and funded vehicular traffic. When motorists on Burnside, SE 82nd, and Broadway complain that we are impeding their travel by going 12-20 MPH two abrest in the right hand lane or forcing them to wait three or four traffic light cycles to make a left turn because twenty bikes are lined up to make that same left, we'll politely inform them that we agreed to do EXACTLY as they wished and these are the consequences.
Share the road!
October 5th, 2007 14:58
The reason, Nelson Muntz, is that those people who get all worked up abou us not paying our share are simply wrong. They are misinformed. So we wouldn't be giving in, we'd be getting double-taxed to appease a tiny, ignorant minority.
October 5th, 2007 20:24
$60 for two years is higher than the registration on our old Toyota, and more than TWICE the registration on my 1971 Vespa 200cc motorscooter. That is absolutely ridiculous. What if you have multiple bikes? If would be paying $360 every two years, and I can ony have my ass over one bike at a time. Are bikes used strictly for racing exempt?
Taxing tires? What if the majority of your miles are offroad? That tears up tires more than on the street. What about a bike used exclusively for track racing, or cyclocross that never is on the street? Tax exempt?
Bicycling is an affordable alternative to driving a car and is about $800 cheaper than a Transit pass. You can buy a nice bike, a good lock, really good lights, and rain gear for $800. Let's try to keep bicycling affordable. For some it is a bare necessity, not a luxury.
October 6th, 2007 09:16
Creating larger bureacreacies,Yes that will solve the seven ,close calls last year with the 27 pound bike and its 145 pound rider nearing colliding with the 2000 pound car and its 325 pound driver.We need goverment in our lives to protect us from....Well I saw an ad...Well someone said ...Anyway a license will protect us all. Look how well it works for Automobiles,and fishing and bars ,and manufacturing,and ....PLEASEEEEEEE
October 19th, 2007 09:38
Why????? What problem are cyclists causing. Do we need to discourage people by taking their bike to work. Or say I just want to go for a short ride. Do I have to take an ID card with me. I mean, you can't seriously hold cyclists accountable for carrying driver's licenses, or any formal ID, unless if you charge pedestrians with the crime of "failure to carry ID when walking on the sidewalk." This is about the worst idea I've heard in a while.
October 19th, 2007 16:07
I would go for it, provided that the licensing requirements for motorists were also ramped up accordingly. Given that the complexity and danger of driving a motor vehicle is hundreds of times greater than the corresponding complexity and danger (and other costs) imposed on society of riding a bike, the licensing fees and training requirements should be also be corresponding much stiffer. Thus, I would propose a matrix something like this:
vehicle type motorized nonmotorized
Licensing fee ~$100 ~$10
Hours of training ~1000 ~40
Insurance ~$1M ~$1000
etc.
January 9th, 2008 01:38
I have been following discussions on this subject for a while, in several countries. In the UK cars are taxed for their environmental damages but roads are paid for by Council (Income) Taxes and the VAT. In Texas (where I'm living now) roads are paid for by the General Fund (all taxes not specifically targeted get dumped into one big pile) and are supposed to be maintained by fuel taxes, but as fuel taxes have not been indexed to inflation the fuel tax only pays for 18% of the costs of maintenence, with the rest coming from the General Fund. City streets are paid for with property taxes and City and County Sales taxes. Except for 18% of the maintenence of State highways outside city limits, cyclists pay just as much for the streets and roads as drivers in Texas. Driver and car tags are only allowed to generate as much revenue as they require to run the paperwork in TX +/-, if a program starts to generate more revenue than it's supposed to then the fees are supposed to get rolled back. In reality that never happens, they just add more payroll until they have to ask for a fee increase...
Having said that, if cyclists were taxed based on how much of the road they were allowed to use in proportion to motor vehicles, TX would have to refund cyclists a substantial amount of money every year. Road wear is proportional to the square of the GVW. Imagine trying to figure out the taxes at Semitruck tax* 1/sqrt(80000-bicycle weight)= Bicycle tax. For those not willing to find a calculator it comes to less than a dime. And the bicycle would still be over paying the tax, because the rate of wear on a road surface from a bicycle is so low that the people that measure that kind of thing stopped decades ago because the weather was wearing out the pavement surface faster than the bicycle.
It's late now and I have to be somewhere in the later in the morning.
Opus
January 9th, 2008 10:15
I have my license to ill,son.