is one of the bill’s sponsors.
Four members of Oregon’s House of Representatives have put forward a new bill that would require all bicycles in Oregon to be registered.
House Bill 3008 would establish a “bicycle registration and licensing system.” The bill would also create new offenses for altering bicycle serial numbers or licenses and for failure to register your bicycle.
In addition, the bill states that, “bicycle ownership information” would be made available to law enforcement agencies and that registration, renewal and other fees would go into a Bicycle Transportation Improvement Fund that would then be used to fund “bicycle related transportation improvement projects”.
The fee proposed in the bill for bike registration would be $54 and it would have to be renewed every two years for another $54.
Here’s the language that deals with the new offenses for tampering with a serial number:
“A person commits the offense of altering a bicycle serial number or license if the person willfully removes, destroys, mutilates or otherwise alters the serial number or license of any bicycle.”
The offense would be a Class D Traffic Violation and would come with a maximum fine of $90.
Here’s the section that describes the mandatory requirement to register a bicycle:
“A person 18 years of age or older commits the offense of failure to register a bicycle if the person owns a bicycle in this state and the person does not register the bicycle or renew the registration of the bicycle.”
The proposed bill also says that the following information “must” be included in order to be assigned a “license number”:
(a) Name of the owner of the bicycle;
(b) Owner’s address and telephone number;
(c) Owner’s date of birth;
(d) Make of the bicycle or name of the bicycle manufacturer;
(e) Model of the bicycle;
(f) Wheel and frame size of the bicycle;
(g) Serial number of the bicycle; and
(h) Any other information the Department of Transportation considers necessary.
ODOT will maintain a database of this information.
In addition to the $54 fee for registration and the $54 fee for renewal, other fees include; $1 for transferring a license between bikes owned by the same person, $2 if you want a duplicate license, and $5 to transfer the license from one person to another.
In another section, the bill proposes that whenever a bicycle is sold, the owner must report the sale to ODOT within 15 days and if the owner’s address changes, ODOT must also be notified within 15 days. Failure to do either of these things is punishable by a maximum fine of $25.
Who will carry out the registrations? The bill says ODOT can contract with “any private person or entity or other unit of government”. The “agent” that issues the registration would keep one-third of the money and the other two-thirds would go back to ODOT.
The money would got toward a new Bicycle Transportation Improvement Fund to be established in the State Treasury and would be “continuously appropriated…to pay for development and maintenance of bicycle lanes, bicycle paths and other bicycle related transportation improvement projects.”
Failure to register your bike would carry a maximum fine of $25. Exceptions to the registration requirement include: “Bicycles held by bicycle dealers for sale or trade” and “bicycles not operated on the highways of this state.” (“highways” in this context mean any publicly accessible roadway).
The four legislators listed as sponsors of this proposal are; Rep. Wayne Krieger (R-Gold Beach), Rep. Sal Esquivel (R-Medford), Rep. Bill Garrard (R-Klamath Falls), and Rep. Michael Schaufler (D-Happy Valley).
A quick search of the BikePortland archives pulls up a bit more about Rep. Krieger. A former State Police Officer, he was one of two people who voted against the Vulnerable Roadway Users bill when it passed (5-4) a committee back in 2007. He felt the bill unfairly singled out motor vehicle operators and said during testimony that bike operators should hold more responsibility (Krieger is from the coastal town of Gold Beach and his main experience with bikes is people touring on Highway 101/1).
Here’s a quote from him I reported back in 2007 that might give you more context for his views about bikes in general:
“On the way to work this morning, coming to an intersection, I stopped, and here comes a bicycle right next to me, right through the intersection…and that is a daily thing…and until we get a handle on that and hold them accountable….they’re creating a hazard out there. They’re on a public highway that’s designed for motor vehicles, not for those other uses…and to put everybody who’s driving a vehicle into a situation like this…I think it’s not right.”
I’ll be following this bill closely and will keep you updated on its progress. I have already spoken with Karl Rohde of the BTA and have calls into two of the bill’s sponsors. I am also looking into whether or not this bill has a fiscal impact statement (saying how much it will cost ODOT to run) and will share that once I find out.
UPDATES:
1) Karl Rohde is in Salem today and heard Krieger mention the bill to him during a recent meeeting. Rohde has not seen the full text of the bill, but told me this a few minutes ago:
“The BTA is always opposed to something that discourages people from bicycling… historically we have been opposed measures like this.”
Rohde said he must let the BTA’s legislative committee review the bill and get back to him before he can take any official position on this bill. (It might be worth noting that a few months ago, the BTA said they would support — in concept — an idea of a bicycle excise tax at the point of sale, but that’s a lot different that what’s being proposed here.)
2) Read more about this bill from my conversation with Rep. Krieger.
[Hat tip to Evan Manvel for bringing this bill to my attention.]
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
This bill is ridiculous and should be vigorously opposed. Call or write your legislator.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/senate/
http://www.leg.state.or.us/house/
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
That is the worst idea I’ve heard in a long time. Does anyone besides the four misguided reps listed above think this is a good idea? What’s next, we’ll have to register ‘any shoes worn in transportation of humans on sidewalks in the state of Oregon’?
I can just see the CCC Create a Commuter program going down the tubes because of this. Some people use bikes for transportation because they can’t afford a car. Tacking a bunch of fees to what should be a basic right to mobility is ludicrous and infuriating. I’m all for bike funding, but let’s find a sane way to get it.
Jonathan, “highway” in vehicle code contexts usually mean any public roadway. I know that’s how the California Vehicle Code works, but it’s the FHWA (I think – it’s some fed agency) defines it as such.
Gee, my bike was not fabricted with a serial number. Will I be able to register it?
I might have to thin my herd if this passes. $270 to register all 5 of my machines is going to hurt.
The definition of “highway” is key to understanding this bill. What exactly is the intent of the sponsors? Is this a bill to raise revenue, or reign in some sort of problem that exists?
At $54 per bike it will cost more for my household to register our bikes than our car!
This is insane! The only purpose this this bill has is to discourage bicycling.
And what about those of us with more than one bike, or several? That could mean hundreds of dollars every year – for a form of transportation with minimal impact on government budgets. Silly.
So what if your bike is handmade – where do you get the serial number?
I can see some advantages in recovery and such with registration, but I cannot see how this would ever be effective. And the transfer of ownership policies seem a little draconian.
And for all the people that live in Vancouver but commute to work in Portland on a bike, what would be the policy there? There’s going to be a ton of bikes in Portland through this loophole that won’t be required to register – that is, unless you require all bikes entering the state to be registered in Oregon and that’s just absurd.
This is an idea generated by Car-heads people.
To them, it obviously makes sense.
I have upwards of 30 bikes, can’t all be registered
This bill sucks. Especially since Oregon Legislature only meets biennially…every other year…it would nice if they’d spend the valuable time they are in session on better proposals than this.
Senate Majority Leader Richard Devlin = 503-986-1719
House Majority Leader Mary Nolan = 503-986-1436
John L.
Thanks for the input on the “highways” definition. I also asked BTA lobbyist Karl Rohde and he concurred with you. I have changed the story to reflect this.
It does indeed include all public roadways in the state.
Also, I have just updated the story with more information about Rep. Krieger.
What about all the homeless people?
Jonathan, found reference in the ORS. Yup, same sort of definition as California, just muddier in its language: ORS 366.010
Eye-stabbingly bad idea.
This concept has been tried in several other US cities and failed miserably every time.
Detroit, I think, was the last one to give this a go back in mid-2008 and it lasted a whopping 6 or 7 days before the whole thing got nixed. They were handing out $55 tickets for unregistered bikes at the time …
lets register golf clubs and use fees to maintain golf course, register surf boards for beach improvement and register cross country skiis for forest trail improvements and how about registering shoes with fees used to improve decaying side walks… (maybe with mileage tax) hey this is fun!
I just looked at the DMV site, and $54 is the going rate to renew a passenger (motor) vehicle for two years.
For a bike, that’s just unreasonable!
Whaaaaaaat? I see the value in this in terms of bicycle theft, but what other purpose does it serve? If a bicyclist commits a traffic violation or crime, the penalty follows the cyclist, not the crime. Car registration makes sense because licensure allows for easier regulation of traffic violations, based on the license plate. But no one can see a ‘sticker on the frame’ anyway without stopping a cyclist.
Also, this would be a HUGE blow against low income and indigent people, and people who are not bike-savvy enough to know their “frame size and wheel size” (which I’m guessing has a high correlation with socioeconomic status and education level, and I would also venture to guess might actually constitute the majority of casual bike riders). Plenty of people get bikes from friends or craigslist without knowing anything about them except that it’s going to do the job in getting them around town. And where is a low-income parent supposed to scrape together $54 to register their kid’s $80 Huffy? It would be just another way to penalize people on a technicality.
And what about freak bikes?
…I’ve seen people commuting on skateboards…
This policy if adopted brings up an interesting opportunity…of fairness…
How about a weight based (or mileage) fee?
$54 sounds quite high given the impact of bike wear and tear on the roadway and cost of bikeways to build/ maintain.
$54 is about 55 cents per vehicle pound (based on a 30 lbs bike)…so similar fee for a SUV would be a good thing?! For example, an Escalade driver would pay $3278 or a Hummer H-2 would be $3674, etc.
Sounds like a good idea…and double the fee for studded tires. 🙂
Does this fill a need? Is there a problem this is intended to correct? If so the bill’s sponsors need to tell us what that is.
If it is purely intended to generate revenue for the Bicycle Transportation Improvement Fund, let’s get some projections of the dollars this would bring in. Not pipe dreams and guesses from the sponsors, but real world estimates. If those numbers completely overwhelm the current spending on bike lanes and the bill’s other targets, then maybe, just a tiny little maybe, they might be able to sell me on this.
Nah. If I don’t know what is being fixed I can’t see any value to this.
It’s widely acknowledged that the administrative overhead caused by this bill’s passage would exceed any revenue from the fees it assesses. This bill is clearly written by someone who doesn’t have a good understanding that bikes don’t equal cars.
$54 is exactly what drivers pay every two years to register their vehicle. Why are bikes charged as much as cars?! Is that to imply that my bike causes the same wear and tear on infrastructure as a car? Ridiculous.
I have four bikes. My partner has five. Another friend of mine has seven. Does that mean that every two years each of us has to spend $200 to $400 to register our bikes? Come on.
This bill is anti-cycling, pure and simple, and its passage should be fought tirelessly.
I think the bill needs serious tweaks. This could be a step in OR towards to equal access to roads, equal consideration in all infrastructure project and equal protection in the justice system, but the mandatory rules are not enforceable and the cost is absurd.
So, the registration is $54. But the maximum fine for not registering is $25. Hmm. I think I’d take my chances and dodge the draft.
Might have to start borrowing that nice used Trek that my granddaughter stores at my house…
Holy Bovines.
What a load of manure. “Let’s pick on those bicyclists! They’re uppity & well-heeled!”
I’m with Kronda (#2, above) about this being counter-productive for making bikes viable transportation for them as can’t even afford a car, let alone its impact on those who don’t want one. That is maybe it’s purpose as legislation? Arrest the growth of bike “culture”/impact on transportation planning?
If its intent includes enabling recovery of stolen bikes, there are already systems in place that can help as effectively with that without new government process. The levying of taxes on a form of transportation which should be subsidized for its clear financial benefits to society is suspect as a means to bash it by those opposed to competition with their own destructively automotive-centric lifestyle (yeah, we own & use a car, too). Are any of these legislators vehicular cyclists? Commuter bicyclists? Mountain bikers? …do they even have a bike rack for their SUVs? (okay, that last is an unfair assumption, I admit).
What about this? (emphasis added)
“A person 18 years of age or older commits the offense of failure to register a bicycle if the person owns a bicycle in this state and the person does not register the bicycle or renew the registration of the bicycle.”
If I am correct, even automobile owners do not have to register a car belonging to them which is not in use on public roadways (that beater parked off the street), yet bike owners would be in violation for not registering a touring or other frame in storage which only touched the ground every other year? Uhuh. Anti-bike much, honorable state representatives?
The great people of the State of Oregon need to cover this effort with 37mm tread marks until it’s forgotten.
So, if he doesn’t want to share infrastructure with cyclists, how about he votes for separate infrastructure for us which would actually save the state money in the long run, instead of creating a money sinkhole in ODOT by tagging cyclists so they have an easy way to take out their annoyances on anyone who happens by.
Let’s refer again to this article about bicycle registration from copenhagenize.com
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2008/05/rewarding-cyclists.html
This is a poorly thought out bill that would discourage cycling. Kill it.
Absolutely ridiculous — I will be calling my State Representative today, regardless of where this bill stands in the process. And I’ll be following up with more calls if it actually makes it out of a committee.
“A person 18 years of age or older commits the offense of failure to register a bicycle if the person owns a bicycle in this state and the person does not register the bicycle or renew the registration of the bicycle.”
So . . . if I sell all my bicycles to my 5 year old daughter for $.50 now, she won’t be 18 for 13 years . . . And then, SHE can sell them to my up-and-coming grandchildren for the same $.50. That way, all the bikes I ride will be OWNED by kids younger than 18, and I’ll (oops . . . they’ll) never have to register those bikes!
heh.
if they do this, then we are suddenly granted the SAME rights as car drivers.
Wanna go top speed on the freeway, folks? It will be perfectly legal to do so. I predict some pretty massive clogs in the streets as we all *take the lane*…for our 10 mile commutes.
What about freakbikes? I have bikes with more than one serial number, and bikes with no serial number. Different bikes have their serial numbers in different places and it is very easy to end up with more than one serial number, or none at all. Will they be assigning re-VINs like the DMV does? Do you have to show proof of ownership?
Also my total registration costs would be about $540, and if you exclude my track bike, that is more than they are worth, unless you add up the hours into them.
How many poor and homeless people will be able to afford to register their bike? Is this just another way to harass poor and homeless people, like the sit/lie ordinance.
Yet another reason to hate Orygun.
RACER X (#20)!
Okay, I usually stay out of legislative topics here because I live in Vantucky. If, however, what you propose were to become law, I would move to Portland so fast you’d hear a popping sound as the air rushed in to fill where I was previously standing. Then I would proudly pay the ransom on all my bikes just to enjoy watching automotive traffic thin and vehicle size shrink in general! (Although I would support an exception for freight traffic as it normally travels on routes not suited for bikes anyway). What a fine dream…
skidmark:
just come over to my house…we can give some new numbers. or hit harbor freight…they have steel stamp sets for 3$. You can put 100’s of numbers at odd spots all over your bike.
I am sure that given 10 mins, 3$ in parts and a pair of earplugs, we could make any DMV inspector an incredibly frustrated person.
Commies.
“The four legislators listed as sponsors of this proposal are; Rep. Wayne Krieger (R-Gold Beach), Rep. Sal Esquivel (R-Medford), Rep. Bill Garrard (R-Klamath Falls), and Rep. Michael Schaufler (D-Happy Valley).”
No wonder.
#27 Metal Cowboy, I don’t think the bill is poorly considered. I think it’s intention is exactly to discourage and kill cycling.
As for the co-sponsors, it seems that Krieger has a serious chip on his shoulder regarding bicycling. I’d think that the folks in Medford, where Cycle Oregon will be spending two nights this year, might like to give a warmer welcome to 2000+ cyclists than a $100 bike registration bill, a la their state rep.
Underprivileged people can not afford this b.s.
p.s. Would I be required to register my minibikes too?
What happens if you change your wheel size on your bike after registering it?
I mean, it’s not unheard of…
According to the text of the proposed bill, you can transfer the registration from one bike you own to another bike you own.
I spot a loophole: instead of $54 for each bike you own, spend $54 for one bike, and then $1 to transfer it to another bike you own. Repeat for each bike when you want to ride a different one. Make copies of your transfer paperwork to carry with you while you’re waiting for whoever adminsters this program to process the paperwork.
I think the headache of processing sticker transfers will overwhelm whoever gets to administer the program in a short period of time, and the program will sink like a rock.
One thing I do like about this thing, though: all funds collected, less one-third for an administrative fee, will be used for bike infrastructure only– as well as any intrest accrued on the balance in the bike bank account. Of course, all funds collected in the course of enforcing this thing will go elsewhere….
I also like that last bullet point about what information is required to register:
Is that bit in there for motor vehicle registration?
This just seems like a horrible idea all around.
Yeah, all funds raised would go into a bike fund, but the problem is, the funds raised after administrative and enforcement costs would likely be next to nothing.
It sounds like the author of the bill is scared by having to drive next to bikes. I encounter this sentiment periodically, especially with older people who admit they don’t see so well. They are understandably scared of hitting a biker. But this bill is certainly not a good solution.
I’d be willing to listen to Krieger’s proposal, if he’s willing to treat all road users equally.
Let’s say the average price of a common bike is $500 (I don’t know if that’s in the ballpark or not)… then he’s proposing about a 10% tax every other year. By that standard, the owner of a $20,000 car should pay $2,000 dollars every other year. That would help cover the deficit in road budgets.
Conversely, the current vehicle tax is less than 0.03% of the cost of a $20,000 car… so the equivalent burden on the owner of a $500 bike would be $1.35 every other year.
But I’m not going to get too worked up about this vindictive proposal yet. We have more important things to do than obsess over the fringe folks who just have an irrational fear and hatred toward cyclists.
Not to be devil’s advocate, but I have a serious question regarding this that I’d really like your opinion on.
I don’t know if “registering bikes” is the proper term for what I’d like to see, but let me explain the situation.
Let’s say there is a situation where a car isn’t driving safe, and endangers you, or your property. I saw alot of times close calls,these people being identified by their liscence plate numbers on the close calls board here.
I think that is perfectly reasonable. People need to be held accountable.
I have two situations that are a bit reversed. Once, walking downtown, I was hit by a cyclist who was riding on the sidewalk in an area where it is prohibited. Luckily it wasn’t a huge deal, and I was okay, but the cyclist drove off. Had I been hurt, or my property been damage, there is no way I could have held the cyclist accountable because I had no “Liscence Plate” equivalent by which to identify them.
Similarily, once I was driving my car, and as you guys are the victims of “Bike Haters” who through things out their window etc, I was a victim of “Car Hate”. I was waiting to turn right, yielding to cyclists in the bike lane like I was supposed to, and one reached out and thwacked my side mirror. He didn’t knock it clean off, but it was damaged and required repairs. I was in my lane and not doing anything illegal, and again had no way to hold the offender or their insurance accountable.
So for me, all of this license/registration stuff has nothing to do with trying to get extra money from you guys – I understand you already help pay for the roads and that that argument is BS… But I do have a problem with the fact that when both of these situations occured, I had no way to hold the offender accountable.
Does that make any sense? Can you see where I’m coming from?
One interesting thing at the bottom of the text of this bill:
“Class I and Class III all-terrain vehicles are exempt from registration.”
So ATVs, which cause environmental harm and damage to public lands, are given a pass while a 30-pound human-powered bicycle has to pay the same registration as a car? Not remotely fair or wise.
There’s a whole boatload of stupid delivered with this “bill”.
As noted above, the authors either don’t understand how and where DVM collected revenue goes or, more likely, they are deliberately trying to obfuscate the fact that DMV fees run the DMV and nothing else.
By saying that bike registration will go to a Bicycle Transportation Improvement Fund, they are implying that road infrastructure is paid for by DMV motor vehicle fees and without similar bike registration, those damned freeloading bicyclists aren’t paying their way. Of course, road infrastructure isn’t supplied by registration fees and we bicyclists are already paying more than our fair share for what we get back in return.
But you get to implicitly deny or ignore that by writing this dumb bill.
This is a bargaining chip and a PR vehicle, not something they actually think will become law. It’s a punitive measure written against people they personally dislike that they will relent on later in exchange for something they want.
That and they get to whip up some anti-bike hysteria in the process. The bill itself is boneheaded stupid. But at a time when bicycle infrastructure is getting the shaft in the stimulus package, they can get people to rant and whine about bikes not paying their way. It doesn’t matter if they are doing it dishonestly.
Hisssssssss.
More of the same old “cyclists should pay their way” baloney. It’s been thoroughly discredited every time some mouth-breather raises the argument, and yet the mouth-breathers just keep hammering away on the point, oblivious to the fact that cyclists do pay their way, and then some.
Maybe there should be a law requiring Republican blowhards to do their homework before proposing stupid ideas.
Smells like a fishing expedition. It seems quickly slapped together and poorly worded. For example; the bill states that “someone”, in a hand waving sense, will administrate registration and record keeping. The bill is not dependant on the fulfillment of this claim.
Oversight is not addressed, significant given the “any person or private entity or other unit of government”.
In fact, that statement does not restrict the physical location, qualifications, review process, or limitations based on criminal activity for the potential agency, entity, or individual. (!!! individual!)
I just called the offices of the Senate and House Majority Leaders and they did not seem to be aware of the bill. Fortunately, the person seemed to agree with my summation of the absurdity of this bill. Thanks to Jonathan for information the bike community!
S