home

Mandatory bike registration bill introduced in Salem (updated)

Posted by on March 6th, 2009 at 10:45 am

Rep. Wayne Krieger
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.

Story continues below

advertisement

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.]

Email This Post Email This Post


Gravatars make better comments... Get yours here.
Please notify the publisher about offensive comments.
Comments
  • JM March 6, 2009 at 10:55 am

    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/

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kronda March 6, 2009 at 10:56 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Lascurettes March 6, 2009 at 10:57 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Brian E March 6, 2009 at 11:00 am

    Gee, my bike was not fabricted with a serial number. Will I be able to register it?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Capturedshadow March 6, 2009 at 11:00 am

    I might have to thin my herd if this passes. $270 to register all 5 of my machines is going to hurt.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ben McLeod March 6, 2009 at 11:01 am

    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!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Lance P. March 6, 2009 at 11:01 am

    This is insane! The only purpose this this bill has is to discourage bicycling.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rob V. March 6, 2009 at 11:02 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Lascurettes March 6, 2009 at 11:03 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • RyNO Dan March 6, 2009 at 11:06 am

    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

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob March 6, 2009 at 11:08 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Lance P. March 6, 2009 at 11:08 am

    Senate Majority Leader Richard Devlin = 503-986-1719

    House Majority Leader Mary Nolan = 503-986-1436

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonathan Maus (Editor) March 6, 2009 at 11:09 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • kev in PDX March 6, 2009 at 11:09 am

    What about all the homeless people?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Lascurettes March 6, 2009 at 11:12 am

    Jonathan, found reference in the ORS. Yup, same sort of definition as California, just muddier in its language: ORS 366.010

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bhance March 6, 2009 at 11:15 am

    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 …

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bobcycle March 6, 2009 at 11:17 am

    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!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Laura March 6, 2009 at 11:18 am

    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!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Esther March 6, 2009 at 11:18 am

    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?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • patrickz March 6, 2009 at 11:26 am

    …I’ve seen people commuting on skateboards…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Racer X March 6, 2009 at 11:28 am

    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. :-)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • buglas March 6, 2009 at 11:29 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Hollie Teal March 6, 2009 at 11:29 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Sam March 6, 2009 at 11:30 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • happyrider March 6, 2009 at 11:34 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • buglas March 6, 2009 at 11:36 am

    Might have to start borrowing that nice used Trek that my granddaughter stores at my house…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Refunk March 6, 2009 at 11:41 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dave March 6, 2009 at 11:41 am

    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

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • metal cowboy March 6, 2009 at 11:42 am

    This is a poorly thought out bill that would discourage cycling. Kill it.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Meghan H March 6, 2009 at 11:48 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • dgc March 6, 2009 at 11:49 am

    “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!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jj March 6, 2009 at 11:50 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SkidMark March 6, 2009 at 11:52 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Refunk March 6, 2009 at 11:54 am

    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…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jj March 6, 2009 at 11:57 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Erik Sandblom March 6, 2009 at 11:59 am

    Commies.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • R-diddly March 6, 2009 at 12:03 pm

    “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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • PdxMark March 6, 2009 at 12:03 pm

    #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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Andrea March 6, 2009 at 12:04 pm

    Underprivileged people can not afford this b.s.

    p.s. Would I be required to register my minibikes too?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kt March 6, 2009 at 12:04 pm

    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….

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dave March 6, 2009 at 12:06 pm

    I also like that last bullet point about what information is required to register:

    (h) Any other information the Department of Transportation considers necessary.

    Is that bit in there for motor vehicle registration?

    This just seems like a horrible idea all around.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dave March 6, 2009 at 12:08 pm

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • cv March 6, 2009 at 12:08 pm

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Andrew Holtz March 6, 2009 at 12:09 pm

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anonymous March 6, 2009 at 12:10 pm

    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?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Meghan H March 6, 2009 at 12:12 pm

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • encephalopath March 6, 2009 at 12:16 pm

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rixtir March 6, 2009 at 12:17 pm

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John March 6, 2009 at 12:20 pm

    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!)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Sheilagh March 6, 2009 at 12:20 pm

    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

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonathan Maus (Editor) March 6, 2009 at 12:21 pm

    I just got a call back from Rep. Krieger.

    He speaks calmly and rationally about his reasons for proposing this bill.

    I’ll share more from our conversation as soon as I can.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dave March 6, 2009 at 12:25 pm

    @Anonymous: yes, that makes perfect sense, and I agree that it is a difficult issue… but it seems like this bill is largely aimed at restriction of cycling, not simply holding cyclists accountable to road rules. It would make it horribly inconvenient for a lot of people to own and ride a bike, it would be expensive for the state, hardly generating any profits, and would then provide the means to say “look, they have a bicycle fund (albeit, nearly empty), we’re not wasting any state money on bicycle programs.”

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Peterson March 6, 2009 at 12:29 pm

    typical republican posturing… WTF w/t dem though? ….not a snowballs chance … still the faster this POS is shot down, the better.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • q`Ztal March 6, 2009 at 12:31 pm

    (h) Any other information the Department of Transportation considers necessary.

    The only way this won’t be a money loss for ODOT is if it is farmed out to “any private person or entity …”. The only way it won’t be a loss for them is if they sell our private data. Otherwise it’s just an other point of failure in our lack of ability to prevent ID theft.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Andrew Holtz March 6, 2009 at 12:33 pm

    Since Rep. Krieger believes that license plates are the key to preventing illegal actions on the road… I just sent him a note asking him to help find and prosecute the driver of an olive Range Rover, license number ZVZ 668, who was speeding and made an illegal and dangerous pass across a double yellow centerline even though two cars were coming the other way. I know he was speeding because I was doing 27 mph on my bike in a 25 zone.

    If he declines to help hold a car driver accountable, then that reveals something important about the real reason he wants to impose a new burden on cyclists.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Coyote March 6, 2009 at 12:36 pm

    This bill is the legislative equivalent of an internet troll. It is unenforceable as written, and its only purpose is to stir the pot.

    It will never make it out of committee.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Tom March 6, 2009 at 12:36 pm

    Um, yeah, not going to happen.

    But if it does, I’m all for those other taxes on other things, like shoes, cross-county skis, skateboards, rollerblades, kayaks, canoes, razor scooters…heck register everything and charge a fee. Better yet, just bar-code us and add all of our stuff into a personal profile able to be downloaded by any officer of the peace to check that we have registered everything that we own (and paid the registration fee).

    Whoa, sorry, got carried away a bit. But sometimes it feels that’s the way it is. What a huge waste of time and resources this boondoggle of an idea would create!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kt March 6, 2009 at 12:38 pm

    Anonymous, I get what you are saying.

    The problem with your scenarios is this:

    The size, shape, and placement of the reflective sticker will make it well nigh impossible for you to “get their license plate number” if they hit and run.

    The sticker will be 1.5 inches by 2.5 inches and made of a reflective material. How many digits or letters are going to be on this sticker? The text doesn’t say. Will you be able to read it as it goes whipping by you? Probably not.

    The text says the sticker would be “prominently displayed”, but nowhere does it specify WHERE on the bike it would be displayed.

    Heck, I could stick it on my frame where it will get obscured by mud, muck, etc from the roads. It’s displayed, it’s not my fault the roads are dirty!

    Seriously, though… my point is this:

    This thing makes the other road users feel better about themselves. That’s all it does. It satisfies their desire to prove to themselves that cyclists “don’t pay their way”, and if this passes, “good, those cyclists are finally paying their way”.

    It also means that we can’t complain about bike infrastructure and it’s inefficiency or lack– this thing gives a rebuttal, in the form of, “well, maybe you should pay more in license and registration fees if you want more or better bike infrastructure.”

    No. No. No. No. No. No.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Erik Sandblom March 6, 2009 at 12:42 pm

    # 45 Anonymous, a bicycle plus cyclist weighs about 100 kg and goes about 15-20 km/h. A car plus driver weighs about 800-1600 kg and goes about 30-90 km/h. So the car does way more damage if something goes wrong. I don’t think makes any sense to invoke “damage” as a reason to treat cars and bicycles the same regarding registration.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Adam March 6, 2009 at 12:46 pm

    This is so insane. I can see the idea behind punishment for tampering with serial numbers, but the rest is just crap.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Evan March 6, 2009 at 12:46 pm

    This proposal goes directly against Statewide Planning Goals 12 and 13 by discouraging people from using transportation modes other than cars. If you are not familiar with Oregon’s Goals, you can link to them here: http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/goals.shtml

    The fee to register a vehicle in Oregon is currently $54 every two years; the fee to register a motorcycle is currently $30 for two years. For this fee, you get the privilege of dealing with one of the most cumbersome, inconvenient and underfunded state agencies. You also get unrestricted access to every public road in the State, including the Interstate system. You get to pilot a vehicle that is capable of causing massive traffic, environmental degradation, and death. You even get to kill people who are walking or riding bikes and get away with it with a measly traffic ticket.

    For my $54 to ride my bike on local roads, pollution-free, while reducing traffic, what would I get?

    For those of us who own multiple bikes (road, cyclocross, FS mountain, 29er hardtail, track, townie, etc), that’s going to be a big hit. For those of us who may not have a lot of money, that is going to take away the most efficient mode of transportation ever invented. How will the financially underprivileged get to work? What about people from out of state, or tourists from out of the country? What if a family wants to bring their kids to SunRiver from Vancouver? Do they have to register all five family bikes before they can ride them?

    This is nothing more than an effort to stop people from riding bikes. In tough times, it would be the most counter-productive tax scheme ever implemented. In good times, it would just be called dumb.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Max Taint March 6, 2009 at 12:46 pm

    Wow, what a crazy solution to a non-existent problem!

    I wonder if unicycles and push scooters and pogo sticks are also snared up in this or does the law still view these as “toys” not bikes?

    Max Taint

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rixtir March 6, 2009 at 12:47 pm

    There are some 20 bikes in my stable, give or take a few. At $54 a pop, that’s $1080 the Senator wants from me, every two years, on the bogus theory that I don’t already pay for infrastructure.

    This raises the following (what should be obvious) points:

    1) Regardless of whether I own one bike, or many, I’m only capable of riding one bicycle at a time. Therefore, my use of infrastructure does not rise or fall based on how many bikes I own.

    2) My bikes cause ZERO wear to road infrastructure. Thus, it is a matter of fact that i subsidize infrastructure for drivers, who are the sole source of wear on the roads.

    3) By riding a bike, I am reducing congestion, thereby providing a benefit to drivers by my choice of vehicle.

    4) By riding a bike, I am not negatively impacting air quality, thereby providing a benefit to drivers by my choice of vehicle.

    5) By riding a bike, I am reducing my carbon output, thereby providing a benefit to drivers by my choice of vehicle.

    6) Because I am providing benefits to drivers by riding a bike, bicycle-related traffic improvements designed to facilitate my riding benefits drivers.

    7) With the exception of the gas tax, I pay all of the same taxes that drivers pay. I’m already paying for infrastructure, whether it is infrastructure exclusively reserved for bicycles, infrastructure that is exclusively reserved for automobiles, or infrastructure that we all share.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • BURR March 6, 2009 at 12:47 pm

    This is the very same Wayne Krieger who was featured in “Veer” opposing the Vulnerable Roadway User bill, and whinging about cyclists that rode left of the fog line on the coast highway to avoid hazards in the shoulder area.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul S March 6, 2009 at 12:52 pm

    @anonymous (45)

    You raise a good point and I sympathize. But I don’t think registering BIKES not RIDERS would do much in the situation you describe. If I’m driving a friend’s car and get dinged for running a stoplight, my friend doesn’t get the ticket, even though it’s his license plates on the redlight cam.

    Moreover, should we start registering pedestrians? What if I’m walking really quickly past you, spill greasy french fries on your nicely pressed clothes, and you have to take them to the dry cleaners? How do you hold me accountable for that?

    @Racer X (21) and Andrew Holtz (44)

    I would totally barf up $54 a year OR EVEN MORE if this were the case. The roads would be empty of cars …

    My brother went to college in Antwerp in the mid 90s, at that time everyone was required to register their bikes and put teeny widdle license plates on them. Registration was free but the fine for riding w/out was like $10-20 (? I forget. Not a lot, anyway.) Antwerp is a bikey city, similar to Amsterdam bikes have the final right-of-way in most situations.

    As far as I could see registration did nothing to deter thefts which were rampant. The rate of turnover for rusty Dutch clunkers gave central Antwerp a de facto “yellowbike” program. I went to visit my brother and one of his roommates sold me a bike for like $10. Which was stolen a few days later. If you bought a stolen bike w/out a license plate, no problem — just steal a license plate. Remember, it was the BIKES not the RIDERS that were licensed. (Ironically, nicer bikes were less likely to get stolen — everyone knew those bikes were actually cared for, and they weren’t part of the “take a bike, leave a bike” thiefy culture.)

    There are compelling social reasons to maintain a mode of transport available to all citizens which is not dependent on government approval. As my driver’s ed teacher used to say: “driving a car is a privilege not a right.” Licensing bikes (or riders) basically says: you no longer have a right to ride a bike.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Cruizer March 6, 2009 at 12:53 pm

    Does anyone know what it costs to register and license a motorcycle? Is it the same price as a car?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul March 6, 2009 at 12:54 pm

    When there is a 100% vehicle tax, which would effectively double the price of a new car, and minimum $2/gallon gas tax, then we can discuss a bike reg. fee of $5 or $10. Until then this bill is a pile of wet mice.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • andy March 6, 2009 at 1:11 pm

    Hmm. Maybe someone should attach an amendment to his bill to end the subsidy for free on-street parking for cars. Why should we continue to pay to maintain a full road width when only half of it gets used for transportation? [I'm only half joking.]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Hart March 6, 2009 at 1:14 pm

    There are some 20 bikes in my stable, give or take a few. At $54 a pop, that’s $1080 the Senator wants from me, every two years

    I guess you better pay up, you don’t want to be “in violation of compliance”.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Whyat March 6, 2009 at 1:17 pm

    This bill is garbage, but in response to the anonymous post above, I have a few thoughts. I too feel there should be a way to identify bikes on public streets. The argument that bikes don’t weigh enough is total crap, because a 200lb human on a 30lb steel bike going 15-20 miles per hour could (and has) hit and killed pedestrians. I don’t get the argument that fast moving bikes pose no danger. It’s an utter falsehood that gets repeated ad nausea on this website.

    I also have trouble with the argument that an industry that can continually find 30 different innovative ways to build a frame can’t figure out a way to put some standardized form of ID on a bicycle. The bike innovations coming out of PDX alone are amazing, so let’s not pretend that we’re too stupid to figure out this vexing dilemma.

    My personal opinion is that a lot of bikers want to be treated exactly like cars until it A. requires them to follow laws that are inconvenient to them B. requires some form of official registration of their vehicle. As soon as either one of those situations occurs, the argument will be made that bikes and cars are different and shouldn’t be treated the same and god forbid any law gets passed about bikes that costs any money whatsoever (except for the Idaho stop sign law).

    I love biking and I love biking in PDX, but at the end of the day I feel these discrepancies make it easier for crappy bills like this one to be put on the table and taken seriously.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Evan March 6, 2009 at 1:26 pm

    Names of people you might want to email, all in one place:
    rep.waynekrieger@state.or.us, rep.salesquivel@state.or.us, rep.billgarrard@state.or.us, rep.mikeschaufler@state.or.us, rep.brucehanna@state.or.us, rep.davehunt@state.or.us, rep.marynolan@state.or.us, rep.arnieroblan@state.or.us

    Check here for all representatives to find your local rep:
    http://www.leg.state.or.us/house/

    Email them with your concerns.
    Use facts, not emotion.
    Be constructive, not destructive.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spencer Boomhower March 6, 2009 at 1:28 pm

    #45 Anonymous

    I can understand your frustration at having your mirror damaged, though I would still hesitate to start slapping license plates on bikes in response.

    I get the sense that legally bikes operate in kind of a hybrid space somewhere between autos and pedestrians. For example, when a bike is on a sidewalk, it’s supposed to act like a pedestrian, but when it’s on a street, it’s supposed to act like a car.

    So when I think of bike legal issues (not that I’m a lawyer or anything) like this one, I often test them against what-if-it-was-a-car, and what-if-it-was-a-ped.

    Thus when I hear a story like yours, I think: if a ped hit your mirror and then ran off, the upshot wouldn’t be all that different than it was with the cyclist. You’d have just as much trouble identifying the guy. Of course, you’d have a harder time catching the cyclist on foot, but that’s not what you wanted, right? Even if you did, what if it was a skater, or a roller blader? You’d have as much luck catching them on foot as you would a cyclist.

    Would you be calling for license plates for skaters, roller bladers, and exceedingly fast-moving pedestrians?

    Now, if it were a car that hit your mirror, you’d be able to get a plate number. This one time the very thing happened to me: a car clipped my car’s mirror and knocked out the lens. I didn’t get the plate number, but think about what if I did, and called the cops. Do you think they would put any effort into chasing down that driver?

    They would, however, put in the effort if large amounts of damage were caused. That’s a big reason why cars have plates: because they can cause so much damage, and still drive off fast.

    Whereas a cyclist can’t cause nearly the same amount of damage. And any cyclist who causes any substantial damage to a car or ped or whatever is likely to have damaged him- or herself in the process, and is unlikely to be fleeing anywhere too fast.

    So again, I understand your frustration. I just don’t think an obviously unjust, over-restrictive law like this one is the answer. And I think it’s that kind of frustration that’s being exploited in a bill like this one.

    Anyway, I thin it’s most likely the bill is being floated just to score points with certain constituents. Kinda like that “no stimulus for bike paths” BS a while back.

    (Refreshing before posting, I see that #58 Erik says what I meant to say, but far more succinctly.)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rider March 6, 2009 at 1:30 pm

    This is a load of shit. I own 5 bikes right now – everything ranging from a Kona Paddywagon fixie to a Specialized Hardrock to a Bianchi Giro. The reason I chose to commute exclusively by bike was to lower the impact on the environment and on my wallet. With the economy the way it is right now I can not afford to register all of my bikes which each get weekly if not daily use depending on the sort of riding I choose to do. Also, mandatory registration fees of this caliber is on par with that of a regular gas guzzling vehicle will hurt ridership of that of bicycles. Many families will see it as an undue hardship and burden to have to register bicycles for themselves and their children. How is a large family with a larger amount of children suppose to afford registering all of these bikes plus their vehicles?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • AndresM March 6, 2009 at 1:36 pm

    Dumb, dumb, dumb.

    Instead, I should have the option of directing a percentage of my current vehicle registration towards a bike-only infrastructure fund. Voluntary, not mandatory. That, coupled with the new-bike tax idea floated a while back ($4.00 on a new bike), would make a handsome fund for bike infrastructure, I think. But charging to register a bike the same amount as a car is just backwards dumb.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Easy way around it March 6, 2009 at 1:42 pm

    You only have to register the bike if it is owned by someone over the age of 18.

    My three year old is the owner of all the bikes in our household.

    My wife and I just get to borrow them until she grows into them.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jim Labbe March 6, 2009 at 1:44 pm

    I met Rep. Krieger when I lived in Gold Beach briefly 14 years ago. He matches a very congenial personality with a very regressive, anti-urban brand of political conservativism. His base of support in Southern Oregon is of the extreme Rush Limbaugh school. Still, he is not stupid. So I am a bit mystified why he would sponsor such divisive, poorly conceived and controversial bill. Perhaps he is trying to stir up his reactionary base.

    I presume this legislation would somehow exempt cycling tourists that flock in ever greater numbers to the Oregon Coast?

    Jim

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Easy way around it March 6, 2009 at 1:44 pm

    I can see a lot of bikes being bought in the couve.

    I don’t think they will be required to handle the ODOT licensing of bikes up there.

    Going to hurt a lot of stores south of the Columbia.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rixtir March 6, 2009 at 1:47 pm

    Ahh, Hart has “issues.” How refreshing.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Hart March 6, 2009 at 1:52 pm

    Rixtir, how can you support $250 fines for rolling through stops signs for cyclists but oppose a $54 registration fee? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Refunk March 6, 2009 at 1:54 pm

    “I presume this legislation would somehow exempt cycling tourists that flock in ever greater numbers to the Oregon Coast”

    Jim (#74), it would lead to their annoying harassment by bored, small-time – oops, I meant, small town – peace officers in them coastal hamlets. Been there: sometimes the touring cyclist is like a stranger in a medieval village, fair game for sport because yer different

    Really, it would be an opportunity for a mechanism targeting bicyclists in the same way speed-traps work on motorists in small towns. Even if out-of-staters were exempt, it would be irritating.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bahueh March 6, 2009 at 1:54 pm

    I am NOT putting a registration sticker on a $3000 race bike.
    not going to happen.

    I’m guessing this is political posturing against Rep. Bailey….I’d wager that places like Happy Valley, Medford, K. Falls, etc. have law enforcement agendas/budgets that may be affected if some of Bailey’s propositions are passed (less traffic enforcement revenue?)….
    he drops his, they drop theirs…something to that effect…

    just my guess…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rixtir March 6, 2009 at 2:00 pm

    Uh, because penalties are how we enforce laws?

    And because the existing law controlling traffic at intersections was enacted a century ago in order to bring some order to previously chaotic intersections?

    And because the proposed legislation pretends that cyclists don’t already pay for infrastructure?

    Yeah, that’s it.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rixtir March 6, 2009 at 2:04 pm

    I should also mention that the proposed law you’re referring to (Hart) was very poorly thought out, with no consideration apparently given to the full implications of the law.

    Sure, it sounds appealing, lowering the fines to a level violators are willing to pay, but it has other potential consequences that can’t be ignored.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Hart March 6, 2009 at 2:28 pm

    Rixtir, it sounds to me like you only support that laws that apply to you directly. Making the fine high for people who refuse to register will assure compliance, seems like you would support that, right?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anonymous March 6, 2009 at 2:31 pm

    What about freakbikes? What is the frame size? What is the make/model. Unmatched wheel sizes. More than two wheels. Sometimes they have the serial numbers from more than 2 parts frames.

    What about unicycles?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rixtir March 6, 2009 at 2:40 pm

    If it sounds like that to you, you’re not listening. Instead of trying to score rhetorical points, why don’t you just address what it is I’m actually saying?

    I.e:

    This proposed law is a dumb idea, for the reasons I’ve listed (and therefore, I wouldn’t support the law).

    In fact, I’ve said pretty much the same thing about Bailey’s law…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Marc March 6, 2009 at 2:44 pm

    First beer now bikes? What’s next?!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Case March 6, 2009 at 2:51 pm

    Rediculous, there are 9 bikes at my place between my wife and I. $486 every two years? Unbelievable.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Hart March 6, 2009 at 2:53 pm

    No, Rixtir, I am listening to you, and I hear you backpedaling. This isn’t about scoring points, it’s about being honest.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Erik Sandblom March 6, 2009 at 3:01 pm

    Whyat #70, The argument that bikes don’t weigh enough is total crap, because a 200lb human on a 30lb steel bike going 15-20 miles per hour could (and has) hit and killed pedestrians.

    Sure, it can happen. But it’s extremely unlikely compared to the risk of being hit by a car, precisely because of physics. Speed times weight equals danger.

    A bicycle consultant kindly gave me this graph showing mortal collisions in Sweden. It shows that 46% of road deaths were due to being hit by a car, 47% were due to being hit by a bus or truck, and just 0,3% were hit by a bicycle. 1,4% of collisions involved moose.
    http://www.ecoprofile.se/posts.asp?forum_id=&topic_id=995#5798

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SkidMark March 6, 2009 at 3:02 pm

    Whyat, you could standardize vin #s on bikes tomorrow but that will effect the millions of bikes already out there.

    As far as bike vs. pedestrian = death goes, please compare the number of fatalities of that nature that have ever happened to the number the die in auto collisions in one year and tell me which is substantially higher. Are you having red herring for dinner tonight?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rixtir March 6, 2009 at 3:02 pm

    FFS.

    If you have something useful to say, just say it. Just address something I’ve actually said. Attempting to put words in my mouth so you can make a snarky comeback to your own words doesn’t get you anywhere, even if you deny that you’re doing it.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Hart March 6, 2009 at 3:02 pm

    Was the moose wearing a helmet?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SkidMark March 6, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    …will NOT effect…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Laura March 6, 2009 at 3:08 pm

    Case @88…we’re in the same position. And that’s $486 we are probably currently spending on non-essential gear at our LBS or on charity rides that will be re-channeled to registration.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Andrew Holtz March 6, 2009 at 3:12 pm

    Krieger’s bill doesn’t go far enough. It doesn’t cover situations where innocent people are attacked by perpetrators on foot.

    We need a shoe tax of $27.50 per shoe every two years… and then a license plate on the back of each shoe.

    Oh, wait. What about barefoot muggers in the summer?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • rider March 6, 2009 at 3:16 pm

    There already is currently a bicycle registration program in Salem, Oregon with the Police Department which is more than adequate to fulfill whatever needs this bill is trying to address. The registration is voluntary and is pretty much in line with this ODOT nonsense. You register your bike with all of the same information requested by this bill and you get a sticker and it only costs $2.00.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Close- but no March 6, 2009 at 3:25 pm

    Whaa whaa.
    I am so disappointed that funding for bike projects is going away. Wait, What, You want me to pay a little more to help fund those projects!? Piss off! Take the money from those who drive; they are the ones who should pay for bike lanes! Nevermind the fact that the entire state/country is seriously lacking in money.
    Maybe the terms aren’t dialed in just yet, but the idea is sound.

    As cyclists, we demand the same rights as other roadway users. We just don’t want to have to pay our share or be held to the same rules.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dave March 6, 2009 at 3:26 pm

    On the contrary, I would be fine with paying for them, but I don’t feel this is a very good way of going about raising the funds.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Hart March 6, 2009 at 3:33 pm

    As cyclists, we demand the same rights as other roadway users. We just don’t want to have to pay our share or be held to the same rules.

    Yeah, because everyone knows that cyclists don’t pay taxes. Good point.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • boriskat March 6, 2009 at 3:51 pm

    Jonathan,

    I think we’re all eager to hear about the rest of your conversation with Rep. Krieger!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jake March 6, 2009 at 3:51 pm

    This is pretty a pretty typical approach that is used by both ‘sides’ of an issue, first, ask for an unreasonable amount, get everyone up in arms, back off for awhile and then once you’ve got everyone used to the idea and calmed down, you ask for a small reasonable amount and say ‘well at least it’s not as bad as we were asking’ .

    When I was a kid, we paid 2 bucks a year for a small sticker at the police station that went on the seatube that had a number and a year on it, much like a liscense plate tag, we could probally all swallow that cost for all our bikes, maybe that is all they are really after…………

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • mi7d1 March 6, 2009 at 4:00 pm

    My all weather commuting bike has two different size wheels and has no frame. All the bicycle components are to attached to the monocoque body of the velomobile. Another trike I have is listed as regular in size as opposed to the smaller version.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Close- but no March 6, 2009 at 4:04 pm

    Hart-
    Relatively speaking, cyclists pay almost nothing for the upkeep of roads/bike lanes. Drivers pay, homeowners pay, and to a very small degree, people who are legally employed in the state of Oregon, pay.

    Most cyclists do pay taxes, you are right. Just not enough. Hence our failing infrastructure, educational system, legal system, etc, etc.

    As I said before, the details may not be all ironed out, but the premise is a good one.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Close- but no March 6, 2009 at 4:07 pm

    What if it was $50 for the duration of ownership? Pay for title transfer. Like a motorcyle, scooter, car, boat, etc.

    Is the plan as ridiculous?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Hart March 6, 2009 at 4:11 pm

    Relatively speaking, cyclists pay almost nothing for the upkeep of roads/bike lanes.

    You falsely assume that all cyclists don’t pay for automobile registration.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dave March 6, 2009 at 4:13 pm

    Relatively speaking, cyclists pay almost nothing for the upkeep of roads/bike lanes.

    or that they don’t use fuel and pay fuel tax.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dave March 6, 2009 at 4:14 pm

    Renters often pay some property tax that is passed on by the owners of the property as well…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rixtir March 6, 2009 at 4:14 pm

    Close, #98:

    Misses the point entirely. We ALREADY pay (see post 63), Now we’re being asked to pay more, based on the false argument that we don’t pay our way. It’s akin to saying that motorists should start paying for infrastructure– worse, actually, because cyclists subsidize motor vehicle infrastructure, motor vehicle wear and tear to that infrastructure, and other motor vehicle externalities.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Evan March 6, 2009 at 4:15 pm

    Cycle Oregon is spending 2 nights in Medford this year? Maybe they shuold reconsider.

    On that note, would this bill require that anyone from out of state who does Cycle Oregon in the future will have to pay a $54 bike registration fee to ride in Oregon for one week? Will cops pull over everyone on the ride and check them for registrations? Yeah, that’ll go over well. Way to give our nice state a big black eye in the world cycling community.

    What about big races that attract out-of-state riders, like the Elkhorn Classic, Twilight Crit, etc?

    Wow, it just gets dumb and dumber.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Close- but no March 6, 2009 at 4:20 pm

    I am assuming nothing.

    I am speaking of cyclists, not car owners/users, not people who are both. If they are to be considered seperate, then we should consider them seperately.
    I could draw you a Venn Diagram to illustrate my point, but I don’t think it would post very well.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rixtir March 6, 2009 at 4:21 pm

    Close, #104:

    Hart-
    Relatively speaking, cyclists pay almost nothing for the upkeep of roads/bike lanes. Drivers pay, homeowners pay, and to a very small degree, people who are legally employed in the state of Oregon, pay.

    Most cyclists do pay taxes, you are right. Just not enough. Hence our failing infrastructure, educational system, legal system, etc, etc.

    As I said before, the details may not be all ironed out, but the premise is a good one.

    When you’re wrong, why not just stay on that roll, eh?

    First, cyclists already pay for wear and tear to roads, even though they don’t actually create any wear and tear when they ride. Can you say “subsidy”?

    Second, believe it or not, some cyclists actually live in homes and apartments, and thus, pay property taxes, just like drivers.

    Third, believe it or not, many cyclists also own motor vehicles, and thus, pay gas tax just like other drivers.

    Why, some cyclists are even rumored to hold down jobs, and thus, pay income taxes, just like drivers.

    Your argument that cyclists “don’t pay enough” taxes is nonsensical, unless you also believe that drivers don’t pay enough taxes.

    But if it’s true that drivers don’t pay enough taxes, shouldn’t we tax them more, given their greater numbers and disparate demand for services?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dave March 6, 2009 at 4:22 pm

    @Close- but no: nearly every person who rides a bike in Oregon also owns a car, I would bet.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Hart March 6, 2009 at 4:24 pm

    And why should people who solely ride cycles have to pay the same amount for the upkeep of city streets when the amount of wear and erosion caused by bikes on asphalt is virtually immeasurable compared to cars and trucks?

    If I’m forced to pay the same taxes for roads as car drivers, I’m taking the entire lane where ever I go.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Lascurettes March 6, 2009 at 4:28 pm

    Close- but no, I pay property tax on my home, income tax on my salary and DMV fees on my car; but my primary mode of transport is my bike.

    How exactly do you assume I’m not paying a higher per-capita tax on the roads than someone who primarily drives? Not that much of of the preservation costs of roads are payed for through fuel tax (which goes into the general fund).

    Those that are driving cars are putting far more wear and tear on the roads but are paying marginally more than me in taxes to support the roads.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rixtir March 6, 2009 at 4:28 pm

    SkidMark:

    As far as bike vs. pedestrian = death goes, please compare the number of fatalities of that nature that have ever happened to the number the die in auto collisions in one year and tell me which is substantially higher. Are you having red herring for dinner tonight?

    You’re comparing apples to oranges. There are many, many more cars on the road than there are bikes. If the ratio of bikes to cars were reversed, you’d see the number of bicycle-caused fatalities rise. Of course, mass and velocity also need to be taken into account; if the ratio were reversed, the result would be that bicycle-caused fatalities would rise (although because of the lower mass and volume, probably not to the current level of 42,000 fatalities/year that are auto-related), and auto-caused fatalities would drop (although probably not to the current level of bicycle-related fatalities).

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Close- but no March 6, 2009 at 4:28 pm

    Rixtir-
    You just referenced your own post and all it said was you pay all the same taxes. Read post #104. He makes a really good point, especially in the second paragraph.

    You are right. In the face of such compelling evidence, I step down.

    Cyclists – Republicans of the roadways?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Close- but no March 6, 2009 at 4:30 pm

    Rixtir-
    I am not saying that only cyclists do not pay enough. Nobody pays enough in taxes.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Close- but no March 6, 2009 at 4:32 pm

    I agree that drivers should be taxed more. I would support a $4 minimum for gallon of gas, with the difference going as the current tax rate.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Hart March 6, 2009 at 4:34 pm

    Cyclists – Republicans of the roadways?

    Now there’s a non-sequitur!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Close- but no March 6, 2009 at 4:35 pm

    I just reread my post and it certainly implies that cyclists alone do not pay enough.
    I apologize. I meant everybody.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dave March 6, 2009 at 4:36 pm

    @Close- but no:

    Thanks (seriously, not sarcastically).

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • felix March 6, 2009 at 4:39 pm

    I won’t pay and neither should you!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rixtir March 6, 2009 at 4:46 pm

    I have read post #104.

    If the premise (as promoted by Sen. Krieger) that cyclists don’t pay enough in taxes for infrastructure is a good one, then…

    Because motorists pay only marginally more in taxes (and then only in the instance that cyclists don’t pay gas taxes), and

    Because motorists cause ALL of the wear and tear on roads, while cyclists cause NONE of the wear and tear on roads, and

    Because cyclists provide benefits to motorists in the form of less congested roads, cleaner air, and a smaller carbon footprint, and

    Because cyclists are excluded from much of the roadway, and

    Because there are many more motorists than there are cyclists,

    Then the most logical course of action would be to more heavily tax motorists, with a tax formula that is based on vehicle weight and miles driven (and perhaps with an appropriate carbon tax thrown in for good measure, to offset THAT impact).

    Be still your beating heart, Hart.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Close- but no March 6, 2009 at 4:54 pm

    Rixtir-
    Sounds like a good idea, for the most part. However, I still maintain that cyclists should pay more as well.

    And Hart had nothing to do with #104. Are you implying he is swooning over your post?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rixtir March 6, 2009 at 5:02 pm

    I don’t have an issue with paying more in taxes; it’s how we get the services we demand. I just don’t think the tax burden for infrastructure should fall disproportionately on those who do the least harm to that infrastructure, and are excluded the most from the infrastructure.

    Somebody else said it– If that $54 fee represented a per pound vehicle tax, and it was applied across the board to all vehicle owners, then the registration fee on a typical SUV would be in the thousands of dollars. Of course, if some State Senator actually tried to implement a $3500 registration fee on SUV owners, there would be open rebellion.

    Much easier to go after a numerically small bogeyman.

    And I’m saying Hart likes it when I start talking about pegging fees to the harm caused.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Steve March 6, 2009 at 5:07 pm

    I’ve heard enough, let’s organize to defeat this!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rixtir March 6, 2009 at 5:23 pm

    If I may add one other note to the debate, there’s some merit to the idea of a registration program to combat theft. I’d even agree that there’s some merit in devising a means of identifying cyclists who cause collisions.

    Unfortunately, this program is not proposed as a program against bike theft. Recent experience in Los Angeles has shown that law enforcement tended to use a mandatory registration ordinance to harass cyclists who were committing no violation other than not having a registered bike. This law enforcement attention was for the sole purpose of harassing otherwise lawfully-riding cyclists– it had nothing to do with fighting bike theft.

    I would love to see a real effort made at fighting bike theft, but this proposed law does nothing of the sort.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Angela March 6, 2009 at 5:29 pm

    Hey, the state is putting in miles and miles of bike lanes for cyclists, so I think it’s completely fair if we pay our fair share. Why wouldn’t we want to chip in? We’re vehicles, and we should pay to use the roads, just like cars do. This will help legitimize bicycle transit, instead of making us look like a bunch of freeloaders.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • 2MT March 6, 2009 at 5:40 pm

    naa lets let it pass!
    hear me out, its gonna cost a freeking mint to fight it and after its fought we will still have to fight for the right to take the lane. so let it pass but put some riders in the language like cyclists are allowed to take the lane on the freeway. running over a cyclist with a car is assault with intent to kill. &c. you can see where this goes if we have to pay the freight so be it. with some creative rider writing we could bring the motor vehicle transportation infrastructure to its knees in a single day. we could lock up the courts and crash Salem. cmon this could be a gold mine in disguise. the entire state would have to comply
    with this law and the entire state would suffer under it.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jim March 6, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    obviously another attempt by democrats to make a bigger more controlling govt.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • toddistic March 6, 2009 at 5:48 pm

    I thought republicans were about deregulation? Oh and if we are allowed to use all highways (streets) I’m going to start commuting up I-5, watch me slow traffic to a crawl!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Racer X March 6, 2009 at 5:52 pm

    Ok – how about if I move to Vancouver and buy a large commercial building…then anyone from Portland (etc) who wants to avoid this fee (before it goes into effect) can sell me their bike for $1 and I will rent it back to them…for another small monthly fee. Thus avoiding this whole $54 thing.

    I will send my new address to the list once I get set up. ;-)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • toddistic March 6, 2009 at 5:53 pm

    If this guy wants to see Critical Mass return… by all means, encourage this bill to pass.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • 2MT March 6, 2009 at 5:58 pm

    Oh and as an aside.
    if the police actually tried to look for stolen bikes this might make some sort of logic but fact is that the police don’t have the time to do this chore. EVERY place that has put in rules for bike registration to help prevent theft and relocate bikes has had it fail. how many bikes you think the portland police department has in its evidence locker seized from bike thieves? how many cases are on the docket with charges for bike theft and how many bikes are returned to the owners when seized in a crime investigation?
    Portland does what every other city does with stolen bikes they collect them and auction them off. i am sure the state police do the same thing.
    so how is this bill going to help with bike theft exactly? my bike is already registered and has its handy dandy sticker on it. as did my last stolen one. I have not seen that stolen one turn up yet.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Andrew Holtz March 6, 2009 at 6:01 pm

    Take a look at political reporter Jeff Mapes’ blog posting:
    http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2009/03/legislator_pokes_cyclists_with.html

    He sees prospects of passage as dim. So it may not be a battle worth pulling out the big guns for. Just let it die… while keeping our eyes open, just like on the road.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rixtir March 6, 2009 at 6:05 pm

    Is anybody familiar with the term “gut and stuff”?

    It refers to a legislative process in which the language of a bill is removed and replaced with entirely different language, as log as that language still falls under the bill’s “relating to” clause.

    So, for example, a bill that proposes to raise money for bicycle infrastructure by enacting a bicycle registration fee might be gutted and stuffed with language that proposes to raise money for bicycle infrastructure by enacting a carbon tax.

    Oh, the possibilities….

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Valkraider March 6, 2009 at 6:47 pm

    As written it would probably be cheaper to just take a fine every now and then.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Pete March 6, 2009 at 6:47 pm

    Anonymous (#45): I see your point. But what if I simply walk up to you on the street and take a swing at you? How will you identify me? Should we imprint our SS numbers on our jackets?

    My questions about this bill are: what does it do for the hundreds of cyclists who ride in Oregon on their summer vacations? Is law enforcement charged with stopping any cyclist without a visible registration, or just ones who commit offenses? How is law enforcement supposed to tell a resident Oregonian riding his unregistered bicycle from a visiting Californian or Washingtonian touring our lovely state?

    Whatever happened to “Oregon: the state bicycles dream about”?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Cruizer March 6, 2009 at 7:15 pm

    I see on the Oregon DMV website that it costs $30 to register a motorcycle for two years. So Krieger and his buddies think bicycles should cost more to register than motorcycles. These guys are so out of touch with reality that it’s actually kind of sad.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dave March 6, 2009 at 9:12 pm

    @Angela: actually, the state of oregon doesn’t do much at all related to bike paths, mostly it’s the city of portland. and yes, it’d be great to pitch in and help, I’m all for it, but not by this means. Do it in a way that won’t discourage people from cycling, which this absolutely will.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dave March 6, 2009 at 9:14 pm

    I think it’s also important to note, before we get too disparaging about the state of oregon, that this isn’t law yet, it’s only been suggested by 4 guys.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonathan Maus (Editor) March 6, 2009 at 10:50 pm

    I’ve just posted more about his based on my conversation today with Rep. Krieger.

    Read the story here.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anonymous March 7, 2009 at 11:16 am

    90,91-

    Rixtir is correct that car vs bike fatality statistics are apples to oranges,

    First off, look at the percentage of drivers to bikers. Huge difference.

    Then, look at the number of miles driven by those drivers, compared to the number of miles ridden by those bikers. Once again, no comparison. Thus, you can’t compare the death rate 1:1.

    Finally, I am not saying that bikes are AS dangerous as cars. I am saying that a 200lb person on a 30lb bike going 15 miles per hour can kill someone. I’ve used this analogy before, but here goes: Should I be careless with knives because they are less dangerous than guns?

    Skidmark- I am sorry you think I am trying to change the subject. I’m of the opinion that lots of the issues we debate here are related. You are more than welcome to disagree.

    On a side note (not that anyone asked), as a NH native, I can attest that moose collisions are a huge issue each year in northern NH. I wouldn’t want to make the argument that because there are less deaths from bikes than moose that bikes pose no danger. Remember that your average moose weighs between 800-1600lbs. Try hitting that on your bike :p

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • whyat March 7, 2009 at 11:17 am

    90,91-

    Rixtir is correct that car vs bike fatality statistics are apples to oranges,

    First off, look at the percentage of drivers to bikers. Huge difference.

    Then, look at the number of miles driven by those drivers, compared to the number of miles ridden by those bikers. Once again, no comparison. Thus, you can’t compare the death rate 1:1.

    Finally, I am not saying that bikes are AS dangerous as cars. I am saying that a 200lb person on a 30lb bike going 15 miles per hour can kill someone. I’ve used this analogy before, but here goes: Should I be careless with knives because they are less dangerous than guns?

    Skidmark- I am sorry you think I am trying to change the subject. I’m of the opinion that lots of the issues we debate here are related. You are more than welcome to disagree.

    On a side note (not that anyone asked), as a NH native, I can attest that moose collisions are a huge issue each year in northern NH. I wouldn’t want to make the argument that because there are less deaths from bikes than moose that bikes pose no danger. Remember that your average moose weighs between 800-1600lbs. Try hitting that on your bike :p

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SkidMark March 7, 2009 at 1:02 pm

    You’re from New Hampshire? I guess you left because you don’t believe in their state slogan “Live Free Or Die”.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Christopher March 7, 2009 at 1:18 pm

    AAAHHHH! what the hell? when has this ever been a good idea. so, why don’t we go take every homeless person’s bike away! take mine away while you’re at it because i’m unemployed and i couldn’t get to a job if i wanted with my bike. i’ll never be able to pay.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • al m March 7, 2009 at 7:33 pm

    The RANTING BUS DRIVER SAYS:

    NO NO NO NO NO and ABSOLUTELY NOT

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • al m March 7, 2009 at 7:35 pm

    If something like this actually passes,

    NOT ONE BICYCLIST BETTER PAY IT, NOT EVEN ONE.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Steve D March 7, 2009 at 10:47 pm

    I commute in SW about 14 miles a day. The only maintenance I ever see is the deposit of trash and road debris in my bike lanes. Not to mention the questionable “pavement”. Would the proposed fees improve any of this? I say anyone who owns anything with wheels better take notice. What’s next? Skate boards, strollers, and what about those shopping carts? I would also like to caution those folks on gas powered scooters and doodlebugs. If a fee is to be leveled it needs to be “on the level”.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jbelle March 7, 2009 at 11:11 pm

    discourage people from bicycling…great idea. of course the biggest burden will be on those who ride bikes because they cant afford a car. and if you cant afford a car 54 bucks is a BIG price tag.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Travis Wittwer March 7, 2009 at 11:18 pm

    I just caught the segment on the news. It spurred me to comment. While there are some points that can be made by others (hold one, don’t string me up yet) like we all use the roads so we should all pay for it, I cannot think of a worse course of policy. Anything that would reduce bicycle usage will hurt in the long run. Additionally, in Portland (and we should all flex our muscles), bike business and bike related businesses are numerous and we need to keep it such. Again, terrible direction for policy. It will do little to bring people into the benefit of cycling. I love Portland, not so much Oregon anymore it seems. Living in Vancouver (WA) does not seem so bad right about now.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Travis Wittwer March 7, 2009 at 11:25 pm

    Additional, not that anyone should let this HB slip by, it is likely to not pass. The simple logic being that it is stupid. I wonder what it will cost in administering the license/tax/and those nifty plates in comparison to the money brought in. Does not seem like there will be any money left over for any road repair any way. Again, ridiculously nearsighted HB.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Realist biker March 8, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    This is another perfect example of an ex cop that doesn’t believe bikes have any right to be on the road. It’s disappointing that we have people with such a narrow minded approach in governmental positions. This man is not to be trusted, the one good thing is that you know where this “character” is coming from, he hates bicycles. Everyone must stand up to politicians that seem to be serving their own agendas. Stand up, you voted him in office, make him accountable for his actions. I can’t believe the public in the Gold Beach area support such a view. If so, don’t spend your money in the area, vote with your pocket book, punish the community that supports such politicians, only then will they get the clue to change because it will effect their economy. I wont be riding in that area knowing that I may get run off the road by some angry, misguided ex cop. Good luck Gold Beach, how’s it feel to be known as “unfriendly to cyclists”?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Realist biker March 8, 2009 at 2:32 pm

    Angela…really?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Realist biker March 8, 2009 at 2:37 pm

    I own over 10 functioning bikes, do you think I’m going to register them? No way! When there is “real” money spent on cycling issues then we can talk about, until then it’s just “politicking” (yes, the spelling is as silly as the issue)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • [...] need to notify the government within fifteen days any time a bicycle changes ownership. Even more bizarrely: The bill says ODOT can contract with “any private person or entity or other unit of [...]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • scott March 8, 2009 at 7:12 pm

    Please stop all bike anything boxes, lanes, helmets, ect. Then maybe the road hogs will stop whining. Maybe if GM made a bike they would not have to suck the blood out of my kids kids. The most Europeon city would come up with a looser like this. I new we had allot of extra cops for some reason. They had to find something for them to do.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • carless in pdx March 9, 2009 at 3:16 am

    You know, maybe this bill has made me come around. You know, ‘see the light’ and all that junk.

    Because us cyclists are really the free-loading cheap-ass hipsters that we claim we aren’t. Here we are, slowing down traffic and killing puppies while we cause motorists’ panties to get in a bunch and destroy the environment… but I digress!

    Unfortunately, this bill just doesn’t go far enough. In order to really change our evil ways, and show us how hardcore the true believers really are, I offer up my own version:

    1. Purchase of a bicycle includes 100% sales tax
    2. Yearly registration, $1,000
    3. 6-month mandatory bicycle training course, requires a valid Oregon driver’s license (no other state accepted) and a bicycle learner’s permit, which enables you to ride with an instructor in daylight hours on the sidewalk (with training wheels)
    4. After your training, you have to pass a physical exam, then a written and riding test. $100 fee per attempt. $700 if you pass.
    5. Bicycles restricted to under 10 miles per hour, and cannot enter an automobile lane. You know, because we’re so dangerous, we may destroy the cars.

    If you ride a bicycle that is unregistered, or lack a bicycle license, it is a Class I Felony, with a penalty of jail up to 25 years.

    Now lets see you guys earn some real street cred next time you try to outrun the Po-po on your fixie.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • carless in pdx March 9, 2009 at 3:21 am

    And what will my Bicycle WunderBill accomplish, you might ask???

    Why, simple Johnny! Once you embrace the couch potato lifestyle, you will be blessed with hypertension, heart disease, high cholesterol, and hopefully die at an early age from a heart attack or stroke.

    And, in the meanwhile, we can use the money from those bicycle fees (they’re not taxes! we swear!) to help upgrade all those freeways in Portland to 12 lanes.

    And finally build the Mt. Hood Freeway (won’t need the Clinton Bike Boulevard anymore!)

    now if I can just get Obama to endorse this, the Dems’ll love it!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • A-dub March 9, 2009 at 7:19 am

    I posted this elsewhere and thought I would do the same here:

    more than anything else I think it is important that we not categorize people simply by a chosen mode of transportation.

    I am a bicyclist. I am a motorist. I am a father, a son, a spouse, a brother etc. But in the end, I am a person who rides a bike home from work, drives a car to work and does lots of things the remaining 22 and a half hours of the day.

    What really scares me about the discussions I have seen on other websites is the vitriol lobbed back and forth and how that translates on to the road. When I’m riding my bike I’m viewed as a rolling bumper sticker and suddenly lose all identification other than as a cyclist in the eyes of some people. This bothers me and scares me greatly.

    In the end, when I am on my bike I am very vulnerable to people who decide they don’t like cyclists and choose to intimidate them. Let’s just remember those other categories (father, spouse, son) in this process as well.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • scoutpj March 9, 2009 at 8:18 am

    I am a homeowner, vehicle owner, a tax payer and I ride a bike. I also own more tha one bike like many bicyclists do.
    I think it’s ridiculous to pay to register every single bicycle every 2 yrs at the tune of $54.00 per bike.
    I wonder if we will be taxing people who use wheel chairs on public sidewalks, the Jazzi scooters, skate boarders and walkers and runners? Don’t forget the blind people too since we have to pay to design special walk signals for them. Will we be registering our shoes? Afterall it costs money to maintain all the sidewalks and walking paths too.
    Will this registration finally provide a way to get from St. Johns to Beaverton without having to detour downtown just to get to Beaverton. I am asking will they finally have the money to add a bike lane to Germantown Rd to 185th Ave? Perhaps then I could bike to work without being afraid of being run off the road by a driver who thinks roads are only meant for vehicles.
    And will this mean there will be regular sweeping of the bike lanes in St. Johns of road debris-nails, broken glass, rocks, etc… Every bike I own I have to buy kevlar tires and tuffy liners to reduce the flats I get riding around town.
    I for one will probably do jail time for not registering my bike. Imagine tying up the courts and precious jail space for refusing to register a bike.
    I might be willing to pay a small tax when I purchase a new bike but other than that forget it. I already pay for the roads.
    All this controvers ydoes is further disintegrate relationships between cyclists and drivers. I’m already bracing myself for the ensuing arguments at work that my bike hating coworkers will want to discuss.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • trout March 9, 2009 at 8:44 am

    This is the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard. We should be paying people to ride a bike instead of drive. It benefits all of us to have less cars on the road. This bill would discourage cycling. It will never pass.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • walt March 9, 2009 at 10:22 am

    Politicians divide the public all the time to raise money. There must be other states to live in and ride bikes in. Maybe I’ll start searching. I own four bikes and I’m not ever going to spend $216 every other year. We’re about ready to have another Boston Tea Party aren’t we?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • markr March 9, 2009 at 10:30 am

    A fine law with just a little tweaking. Require each municipality, county, or ODOT (depending on the jurisdiction) to sweep every bike lane at least three times a day. Also, bicycle riders will be compensated $100 each time they get a flat due to debris in a bike lane or bike path.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • matt picio March 9, 2009 at 10:56 am

    Whyat (#70) – Care to back up that assertion with some real numbers? How many people have bicycles killed in the last 5 years in the State of Oregon? (hint: it’s less than a dozen) How many have cars killed? (over 2,000)

    As for ID on a bicycle – sure, it can be done, but it’s not going to be visible in many cases when loaded up with panniers or a trailer, and there’s much less frame to attach the number to, so it’s going to be small – probably too small to read, especially since unlike a car a bicycle frame is constantly in relative motion to the observer, due to side-to-side sway.

    As for registration – No. Way. The arguments are completely bogus. It is a human-powered device. If we register that, we may as well register axes, golf clubs, frisbees (they’ve killed people too), and anything else with a lever, gears, or a hinge. It’s insane. We register motor vehicles because the internal combustion engine allows power levels far in excess of what is necessary to hurt another human, even at walking speeds. Yes, fast-moving cyclists are dangerous and can be deadly – but the death rate due to cyclists is more than 2 orders of magnitude lower than that due to cars – and that’s only accounting for obvious deaths, not pollution or other factors.

    If we were taking serious measures to control car deaths, then I could take your arguments seriously, but the bikes at speed issue is a non-issue. The number of bike-caused deaths is lower than the number of people crushed to death in their workplace. It’s lower than bathtub and hot tub drownings.

    Dave (#108) – Renters almost always pay property tax – the owner passes it along. Rent has to cover all of the expenses of the property, or the landlord doesn’t remain a landlord – they get tired of having to pay out of pocket and sell to someone else. The idea that renters don’t pay is an arbitrary abstraction and a false notion. (I know that’s what you were getting at, I’m just amplifying on it and further refuting post #104)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Lenny Anderson March 9, 2009 at 11:49 am

    Bike registration is fine…but the state should pay the bike owner, not the other way around. $54 every two year is cheap price to pay for less congestion, better air and water, fewer green house gases and healthier people. Bike lanes are just fat fog lines on most state roads anyway.
    Limit to one bike per person. A family of four could register four bikes and receive $216 every two years. It would encourage children to ride their bikes to school…50 cents a week or so, could reduce the number of teenage car drivers, the most dangerous to themselves and others. Biking pays.
    Incenting desired behaviors that have wide public benefit is nothing new.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mikael March 9, 2009 at 12:26 pm

    Fight this bill. Real bicycle cultures don’t tax bicycles. There’s nowhere in Europe that you’ll see this insanity.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rick March 9, 2009 at 1:12 pm

    To charge registration for bikes is absurd. They in no way represent the burden on the earth or on the public purse that motor vehicle use does. Car and gas fees and taxes, in the most heavily taxed jurisdictions, NEVER pay more than half the cost of building and maintaining roads and parking, let alone covering externalized costs such as pollution mitigation, highway police, paramedics, etc.

    Bikes require almost no asphalt, use little parking, don’t use oil, don’t pollute, improve public health, and improve community cohesion–the opposite of the effect of private motor vehicle use. Bicycle users already pay an excess of general taxes to cover the excessive needs of car users for asphalt and infrastructure; car users OWE US.

    Follow this link to see how little car users pay in Texas, for example:

    Do Roads Pay for Themselves?

    Car fees are so low that excess taxes paid by non- or light-users of road infrastructure subsidize motorized road hogs.

    This bike tax is just another attempt to rob clean-living people for the benefit of motorheads.

    (Transit users get screwed too, though in most places their subsidy is slightly less than drivers’ subsidies.)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • beth h March 9, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    @ “al m” (# 149):

    I doubt this bill will become law.

    But if it does, Not only will I break this law, I will organize teach-ins to encourage others to break it too. And then the city will have a GRAND time figuring out where to put all of us when we’re ticketed, fined, and refuse to pay the fines.

    Do you see where I’m going with this?
    The bill is ridiculous, and basically un-passable in its present state. But that doesn’t mean we can stop being vigilant, either.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Zach March 9, 2009 at 3:10 pm

    Gee! I cannot believe to what I am reading about this bill from Arizona. I have a friend who is currently living in Portland and showed me this news. These politicians are too typical and always finding a way to recover $$$ even in bad economy. Krieger and whoever involved in sponsoring this bill are idiots! You are harming the bicycle culture in Oregon and too bad if you have seen bicyclists cycling at the intersection, you should watch out for them instead of charging them by registering on their bicycles.

    I’m disgusted to hear this kind of ideas and never thought of this in my entire life. If I were you (Oregon’s four House of Representatives), I would not go ahead with this bill in the first place.

    Several issues that will give them headaches, they are stupid representatives.

    1. Most bicycles don’t have serial numbers.
    2. Most homeless and low-class people have them and will not afford ridiculous $54.
    3. Bicycles are not same as motor vehicles.
    4. How will people come to Oregon finding out that they will have to register if they are just “visiting”?

    Overall, Those four representatives will reduce visitors coming to Oregon with lack of tourist revenues. Plus, I bet most people in Oregon will not want to vote the same representatives again.

    Your call, stupid Oregon representatives.

    If this Bill has been rejected, GOOD!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Karen Mathson March 9, 2009 at 3:51 pm

    This is ridiculous. For those of us who bike for exercise, this would be costly. And a bike to be registered with ODOT. It is just a way ODOT can get more money.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kt March 9, 2009 at 3:52 pm

    “Relatively speaking, cyclists pay almost nothing for the upkeep of roads/bike lanes. Drivers pay, homeowners pay, and to a very small degree, people who are legally employed in the state of Oregon, pay” Close but no, #104.

    I’m sorry, but you can’t pigeon-hole people like that.

    Are you saying that Cyclists don’t live anywhere, don’t work, and for some of them, don’t own or drive cars?

    Ah, yes, the mythical Oregon Cyclist– a colorful mammal whose migratory patterns are easily trackable, whose mating rituals are observed in urban settings, who spend their days and nights restlessly migrating, who seem to subsist solely on– what, air? Free water from the fountains downtown? Dumpster food?

    I’m a cyclist, and I work. I own a house. I pay my property taxes, income taxes, insurance, registration on my car, buy fuel for my car and thereby pay gas tax… but according to you, since I’m a cyclist, none of what I pay actually counts as a cyclist paying her “fair share” (whatever that means).

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • [...] 10, 2009 in Personal By Jonathan Maus , [...]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Keith March 10, 2009 at 8:26 am

    What next
    A riders license and proof of insurance.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • team uno March 10, 2009 at 9:45 am

    I think this proposed bill is uncalled for. It’s going to discourage others from riding bicycles, I mean who wants to pay to ride a bike. Do people walking on sidewalks or runners have to pay a fee. I agree that we need more bike funding, but if the thinking is that bicylists ride on roads and bike paths, “damage” roads and bike paths by being on them, that just seems ridiculous. Cars are the ones causing that pot holes and pollution, why not do what NYC or London has done and charge a fee to cars driving in higher traffic areas at certain times of the day?

    I feel that the only thing that will come out of this bill is a decrease in ridership, and for a city/state that does so much to say we’re “green” and we care about the environment, the last thing we should do is charge people money who are doing something good, not only for themselves but for humankind.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anonymous March 10, 2009 at 11:12 am

    great idea

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rixtir March 10, 2009 at 5:22 pm

    great idea

    LOL

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Gary March 10, 2009 at 5:50 pm

    I am fine with paying a registration for my commuter bike… As soon as I know the $ goes towards better support for cycling.

    To pay the same state vehicle registration as an SUV??? What a monumental P.O. Do I get bike lanes on every street? Do my tires tear up the roadways? Do I even get an assurance that car drivers will be further educated in the laws that gives cyclists a fair chance on state roads?

    Most PDX cyclists I know are doing it (cycling) for the right reasons – reducing congestion and pollution due to single-commuter car drivers. I will gladly pay my way, but I refuse to subsidize cars when my “road usage” is so tiny in comparison.

    This whole bill reeks of a desperate revenue grab, and will only escalate the already tense feelings between drivers and cyclists. It won’t pass, but it’s outrageous that they would even propose it!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Drew March 10, 2009 at 9:08 pm

    This discussion should start with “Do drivers pay for the road?” The answer is a resounding NO. They are subsidised by everyone, whether you use a car or not. Bike riders subsidize cars, and filter their exhaust with their lungs.
    Once this is understood, so much of the above commentary is moot. And the bill proposed is shown to be sheer idiocy.
    The cost of related car damage that is not even considered in this conversation (from those who would choose to avoid this) is astounding. From health care to global warming. How about all that free parking along the public right of way that cars use? FREE PARKING! Lets start charging for you and me- parking in front of our houses on the public right of way, and see how popular that is.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Diana March 10, 2009 at 9:35 pm

    If bike registration costs the same as cars, trucks, SUVs, and more than motorcycles; then bike riders should have the right to ride on all of the states freeways. Wouldn’t that make rush hour in Portland fun?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • BIKERSKIBUM March 11, 2009 at 1:17 pm

    GO AHEAD — BRING IT ON.

    THEY CAN’T FINE ME IF THEY CAN’T CATCH ME.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Norma March 11, 2009 at 10:13 pm

    This is about as smart as licensing CATS! They come and go so much, you can’t keep track of them.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Chiefsteve March 12, 2009 at 4:08 pm

    I propose to register all hiking boots and other shoe soles as they cause undue wear upon public sidewalks and floors in buildings at a rate of $18 semi-annually would help repave those sidewalks and rights of way. As for running shoes the excessive speed beyond walking mandates that a license must be required and insurance in case of any fatal collisions with registered bicycles.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • [...] be getting some respect in Washington. An economics professor at Oregon State University says instead of taxing cyclists, they should pay us to ride. An off-duty police officer in Tucson was killed when his bike was [...]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Tammy March 12, 2009 at 10:40 pm

    UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!! Whats going to be next, to fatten the law makers pockets. I know! registration for walkers shoes.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • El Biciclero March 13, 2009 at 8:15 am

    drew mentioned: “…FREE PARKING! Lets start charging for you and me- parking in front of our houses on the public right of way, and see how popular that is.”

    I don’t think it would be too popular, but I like it. I manage to keep my 3 cars off the street, why can’t everybody else? Maybe a $54 biennial permit to park cars on the street in residential neighborhoods would be good. Do I own the street in front of my house? I don’t think so. I couldn’t park on the street in front of my house if I wanted to, because I happen to have my and my neighbors’ mailboxes out front. But why shouldn’t homeowners who have too much junk or too many cars to keep them in their own driveway have to rent street space to store their unused vehicles? This sounds like a winner to me. And add a progressive (by length) surcharge to park RVs on the street. These street-parked vehicles pose a danger to residents by reducing visibility for people backing out of driveways, obscuring children that might be playing nearby, and creating expensive obstacles on snowy or icy days. If I were a lawmaker, that’s what I would propose.

    And ban or tax the crap out of studded tires! (Here’s one study done on studded tire damage in WA)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • do not chip the bikes March 13, 2009 at 4:31 pm

    This dumb bike tax is just being used as a excuse to put RFID chips on bikers (in “smart” cards or in their helmets). Read about how Eugene schools are pushing the surveillance at a new post at Alan Pittmans’ section of the Eugene Weekly blog. My Youtube channel has some videos about why RFID should not be allowed: http://www.youtube.com/luddite333

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Chiefsteve March 13, 2009 at 7:13 pm

    We need the Boston plan; yearly street parking permits, $56 parking tickets every 2 hours and $500 booting and towing for all cars parked overnight on street, $56 facing the wrong way tickets

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonny March 14, 2009 at 6:43 am

    Angela- In case you haven’t noticed, bike lanes are neglected strips of white paint squeezed into the shoulder.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonny March 14, 2009 at 6:53 am

    Does anyone have any ideas as to what we can do individually to make sure this thing dies in its crib? Anything more specific than calling the legislators? I’d like to hear…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Chiefsteve March 15, 2009 at 7:12 pm

    Register means to surrender. Of course that can only happen by consent, but if you are not free to go until you give your “consent” then only one thing needs to be said, “I want qualified assistance of counsel” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 468, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1024, 82 L.Ed. 1461
    unless of course you live in North Korea or Cuba

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jacob Muller March 16, 2009 at 3:57 am

    You have all missed the point. This a tax on people who reject consumerism. The car is of course one of the biggies in this area.
    Identification of frames in NSW Australia is a free service provided by Police – your car license or other identifier is engraved. Nobody actively looks for stolen bikes – but goods held by thieves and fences when they are caught for other things can and are returned if only they can be attributed.
    Resellers are required to check up.
    Australia generally has Bike = car legislation for road use – just don’t try actually enforcing it.
    Bike lanes are usually too narrow & in door car opening lanes. There are exceptions.
    I have used a flag SIDEWAYS to take up the lane – a metal car part which has scratched cars. Make sure it is visible (flouro flag) and break-away. But you cannot cheat & go up the kerb side anymore. Good trade off in a city.
    PS – I have ridden in Manhattan and Sydney – Manhattan was much nicer.
    Regards from Nimbin

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Oliver March 16, 2009 at 5:19 pm

    @unless of course you live in North Korea or Cuba

    Or post ‘patriot act’ United States of America

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Chiefsteve March 17, 2009 at 11:29 am

    “Failure to register” (surrender your property) my, my, we are not any different than Libya. Yup, I have seen the enemy and he is us

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Skwirl March 17, 2009 at 4:21 pm

    >Failure to register your bike would carry
    >a maximum fine of $25.

    Hmm. Lessee. A $54 registration fee every two years, or a $25 fine if you happen to get checked by a cop. Decisions. Decisions.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Chiefsteve March 17, 2009 at 8:44 pm

    Ben McLeod

    The supremes have long ruled that a “law (of the united states) must address an evil”…period. There is no law of the united states that requires anyone to get a driver license or register their automobile or even drive a certain speed. That all comes under ‘interpretive regulations’ of 49cfr which have no force and effect of law, unless of course you consent. It is not breach of contract you are penalized for, it is breach of Trust, and that is what you could possibly go to jail for. I offer to teach people law and government but rarely is anyone interested. Now you know why lawyers and judges have such a bad attitude, nobody cares

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Gary Johnson March 18, 2009 at 11:50 am

    Here is an excerpt from the article:

    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.”

    This means that the auto industry will lobby for the elimination of any bike/ped improvements by saying that these funds from bicycle registration shoud be used and NOT highway funds or general transportation funding.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Chiefsteve March 18, 2009 at 7:17 pm

    They never spent one red cent on crosswalk signs which are all obsolete. Then Oregon has the highest unemployment of any state and the largest number of poor people or people living in poverty of any state. Good idea. Take the shirt off their backs too

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • David March 18, 2009 at 10:11 pm

    THIS IS CRAP! who in their right mind wants to pay to ride a bike. I have 3 bikes my self, and my family has more. My nicest bike is a $4000 mountain bike. I ride every where. But i do not have the money or the will to pay to register my bike. This is just one more good way the government is trying to use to limit our freedoms. I understand if you need to have your bike registered to ride in certain areas, like downtown portland or something. But what about smaller towns. I live in the metropoliton area. Hillsboro alone has only 80,000 people. Why should they make me pay to use my bicycle. There is no skill, and hardly any danger in me riding my bicycle. Leave us bikers alone.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Gabriel Sierra March 19, 2009 at 9:23 am

    Greetings,

    What about bicycle tourists who just through the state? Do they have to pay $54 just for the right of passage? This measure is IMHO, medieval. I think the legislators in the state know that part of the Adventure Cycling TransAm trail passes the state and they want to take a piece of the action. I will investigate the matter and run a show about it.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Trekker March 19, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    Vote those four out of office.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Greg Caluori March 19, 2009 at 6:27 pm

    I think It’s a great idea. Maybe then cyclists will obey the rules of the road. I am a cyclist and know plenty of people who ride road bikes and do nothing to obey the road rules. They should also add a mandatory class on how to properly ride a bike on the road. All those opposed to it say it discourages cycling, I disagree. If done right cyclist would have more rights on the roads, and the revenue could be used to widen existing roads for bikes or add new cycling only paths. Not every tax is bad. most things we all use on a regular basis were built with taxes. (i.e. roads, buildings, public transportation, etc.). I find it funny how people hate taxes, but love to use what the taxes create. Just as driving a car is not a right, neither is riding a bike. If paying a registration fee will widen roads like Lookout mountain or other popular roads, then I’m all for it.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • EO Old Girl March 20, 2009 at 11:04 am

    I’ve read the bill. Which Oregon roads are considered “highways” and which are not? The wording is that those bicycle not ridden on highways are exempt. I think it is a waste of time. It will be enforced just as much as the mandatory helmet law for children and the “pedestrian only” sidewalks. Can’t our legislators find something constructive to do with their time?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • kgb March 20, 2009 at 11:13 am

    What revenue? This is a money loser, period. Maybe we should raise the gas taxes to the point where motor vehicles actually pay for the resources they use.

    Then maybe people in cars will obey the rules of the road and a lot less people will die. I know lots of people who drive and they think it is hilarious that they are driving talking on the phone, texting and eating at the same time, all while speeding in a 4000 lb vehicle.

    Yeah losing money on an ill conceived registration plan while surely result in the widening of rural roads, just watch out for the flying pigs.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ken Banks March 23, 2009 at 11:47 am

    I’ve spent some time reading the e-mails which rightly disparage the proposed Bill.

    One aspect that I have not seen mentioned is that many cyclists are motorists – and not a race apart. Here in England we pay about £185.00 pa for Road Tax per car – a lot more that you guys. I’ve got three bikes and pay Road Tax on three cars. Road Tax in England is supposed to be just that ….. pretty funny huh.

    Any tax on bikes is ludicrous and unenforceable. If a cop stops you and you’re not registered – how on earth is he going to discover who you are if you give a false name and address?

    Mind you, they said we would never have our guns taken away in the UK and remember what happened ten years ago.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Chiefsteve March 23, 2009 at 6:54 pm

    Ken,
    There is no law requiring even you in England to turn over your property to the gumint. The “license-plate” was something that people voluntarily applied for (power of attorney) but it came from the U.N. Convention On Road Traffic (read commerce) between Russia and the United States. There were two of them, the first in 1907. The “driver license” and “license plate” came from U.N. treaties, not the law of the land, even your land. The original purpose was to identify commercial vehicals (lorrys, trucks)when crossing borders. They are very happy to have you voluntarily surrender your rights though they are fairly certain you are not crossing borders with taxable goods. mums’ the word

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Carl March 27, 2009 at 9:02 am

    I’m going to go out on a limb and agree with Greg Caluori that it sounds like a good idea, though the specific bill in question as written by a car-centric politician with little understanding of cyclists is a poorly thought-out implementation. 26$/yr seems far too expensive for the relative financial impact each bicycle has on the roadway as compared to an automobile, though you’d probably need to conduct studies to verify that intuition. If that’s the case, the bike registration should be more closely tied to the actual financial impact. As Racer X suggests this could simply involve raising the car registration by ten times or so.

    As an additional improvement, you could register the motor (me) rather than registering each of my bikes.

    But if this meant the police could pursue vehicular negligence and illegal and dangerous behavior on bikes as well as automobiles, I’m all for it. Any vehicle that is permitted to operate on the roadway should be subject to the same laws. Not that registration and license plates seem to stop all scofflaw drivers from operating their vehicles dangerously, but can you imagine what it would be like if cars didn’t have to be registered? If it’s primarily operated on a roadway then it’s a vehicle and must obey the rules of the road. Neither driving nor biking is an inalienable right.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ken Banks March 27, 2009 at 10:02 am

    Chiefsteve

    Thanks for your interesting reply. I’d like to hear your thoughts on the police being able to obtain your identity if you gave false details. Would they insist on verification?

    Ken

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Chiefsteve March 27, 2009 at 10:49 am

    You don’t need to lie, you need to simply refuse. It is in the law. I don’t know about UK law but you can cross ref our cases with some of yours since our laws of the united states are based on yours. Many people here seem to enjoy having a sense of power over their fellow man similar to the Third Reich. You can cross-ref these;
    “[A] detainee’s refusal to disclose his name, address, and other information cannot be the basis of an arrest.” Staats v. Brown, 139 Wn.2d 757, 764, 991 P.2d 615 (2000), (quoting State v. White, 97 Wn.2d 92, 106, 640 P.2d 1061 (1982. (see alsoBrown v. Texas,443 U.S. 47 (1979): ‘ also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1; … Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648.) “the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellant’s right to PERSONAL SECURITY AND PRIVACY,{not “stepping out of car” trumps coercive “officer safety”} tilts in favor of freedom from police interference.” Davis v. Mississippi 394 U.S. 721.. The Fourth Amendment, of course, ‘applies to all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest, Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16-19 (1968) “This appeal presents the question whether appellant was validly convicted for refusing to comply with a policeman’s demand that he identify himself pursuant to a provision of the Texas Penal Code which makes it a crime to refuse such identification on request.” – “Appellant refused to identify himself and angrily asserted that the officers had no right to stop him.” – “The Fourth Amendment, of course, ‘applies to all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest, Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16-19 (1968). ‘[W]henever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has ‘seized’ that person…and the fourth Amendment requires that the seizure be ‘reasonable’ U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 (1975)” – “..a lawful investigatory stop must satisfy Fourth Amendment requirements,” Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200,210 n.12 (1979); “Accordingly, appellant may not be punished for refusing to identify himself, and the conviction is reversed, Terry v. Ohio. “The right not to identify oneself, including press has been upheld”, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, 1995; Talley v. California 362 U.S. 60 1960; association, NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, and speech, Watchtower Bible, et al. v. Village of Statton, 122 S. Ct. 2080, 2002, and in the context of travel and the Fourth Amendment (Lawson, infra).

    Regarding the “traffic citation; “Uniform citation and complaint not an information under oath required by Iowa Constitution. Conviction and judgment reversed” CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA, Appellee, vs. EDWARD G. ASTINGER III, Appellant, 617 N.W.2d 272; 2000 Iowa Sup.

    Regarding self-incrimination; “…that the taking of the plaintiffs’ picture (and fingerprints) before conviction was an illegal act, …gross outrage, …perfectly lawless, …criminal in character, …liable to a civil action for damages, …criminal prosecution for assault.” Gow v Bingham, 107 N.Y. Supp. 1011, 1014-15, 1018, 57 Misc. 66 (1907). “there is no justification for the taking of fingerprints, photographs, and other measurements in advance of conviction,” McGovern v. VaRiper, 43A.2d 514,524, 137 N.J. E.24.
    “compulsory physical examination of a person accused of a crime is inadmissible, as it is a denial of the right against self-incrimination” State v. Height, 117 Iowa 650, 91 N.W. 935; People v Corder, 244 Mich.274, 221 N.W. 309; Bednarik v Bednarik, supra (citing cases); Boyd v U.S., 116 U.S. 616; State v Newcomb, 220 Mo.54, 119 S.W. 405.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Chiefsteve March 27, 2009 at 11:01 am

    Ken,
    I might add that you only need to demand qualified “assistance of counsel” (Johnson v. Zerbst) in the U.S. and say no more. That is in the judiciary act and is mandatory as congress decided that the Bill of Rights was wholly inadequate to protect the people. You will find here that there are no “assistance of counsel” anywhere except maybe in Massachusetts. But he may be slightly angry about being subpeonaed into court to testify as to his credentials. You will always win your case but remember they will make you walk-the-walk usually or strategically dismiss after they’ve hassled you fairly badly! LOL LOL LOL

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • El Biciclero March 27, 2009 at 11:57 am

    #206 “If a cop stops you and you’re not registered – how on earth is he going to discover who you are if you give a false name and address?”

    Here is an interesting tidbit that came out of a recent local case; from court testimony:

    “…The police bureau policy manual…says if officers can ‘reasonably establish’ a suspect’s identity, the officer can cite someone for violations and misdemeanors and let them go. But [Officer] Harris said it was his practice to book a suspect into jail to get a mugshot and fingerprints on file, if there were none already. Portland Police Chief Rosie Sizer said Thursday that is police practice.”

    This was in response to a cyclist who did not have a light and did not immediately stop for police, claiming that the police did not identify themselves.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Chiefsteve March 27, 2009 at 4:23 pm

    A cop has common law police power. If he sees you commit a crime he can arrest you just like any citizen except that we pay them to do this and train them, hopefully not negligently. I personally would not like to be drafted to walk a beat at my own expense.(LOL) Cops are private citizens being paid as employees to do more and more things that they really were not meant to do, under pressure from the feds. She had a right to be taken before a magistrate which probably did not happen so the this is an executive action not judicial. Before an ordinance can be valid it must have statutory authority from the legislature, that is not online. You’ll have to go to the law library to look it up. That is not the ORS which belongs to the bar. It’s interesting to see the citation used to get around the Bill of Rights but they are called “pocket warrants” which were outlawed in in the UK. Imagine that; the very country we went to war with over that now has more rights than we do. Regulations are for agencies. Agencies are private business hired to carry out the functions of government but they are not government, they are public trusts. Once you sign up i.e. “employment” “register” “taxpayer” “obligor” you are, for all intents and purposes, hooked. You do not go to jail for breach of contract, you go to jail for breach of trust! If you purchase a new auto its yours. Once you register aka surrender the thing it belongs to the trust and you only get the “use” of the thing provided you obey the rules of the trust. Nobody has to register their auto but would you prefer $3 a gallon gasoline tax? So, everything attached including the contents belongs to the trust (cestui que trust) Are you starting to get the picture? If you never surrendered the thing then you are outside of any trust. There are pros and cons to both sides but yes, it finances our infrastructure. The problem with agencies is that they are dinosaurs that do not move, easily. They can only change by one and only one method, by joint-resolution. Agencies are not flexible, they are rigid. In other words the legislature passes a joint resolution and the agency affected has give public notice and a comment period generally if the regulation they are commanded to promulgate “substantially affects your rights”. The ones that would not apply to you with force and effect of law have merely force and effect and are housekeeping or interpretive regulations. You are not required to register or license anything, but remember once you do you are subject to it. But you and everyone may get online with your state regulatory agency and SUBMIT YOUR COMMENT(s) online or in writing BEFORE the FINAL RULEMAKING deadline. Protesting in front of the Portland Police Bureau is not going to accomplish anything. Sizer cannot change their policy and procedure. You need to go before the board or legislature and put in writing a request for a “motion for joint resolution” outlining changes you think should be made. That doesn’t mean it will pass but if you can get enough people who can read and write THEN you can effect changes. I’m trying to keep this as simple as possible without boring you to death, and I am surprised to see that one person is actually interested in knowing how their system works. I believe it is a great system of opportunity for YOU if you want it. Personally, for bicycles i think you are opening the abyss of hell. The regulations for a regualr driver license all come from title 49 truck driver regs except that not all of them are included, but if you have tags then they absolutely CAN tax you by the mile aka road tax, AND all those regulations CAN be applied to you, just be thankful they are not. Every state has a web page and the federal government has one, too. I hope I am motivating you

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Chiefsteve March 27, 2009 at 4:30 pm

    Again, if there was a valid ordinance with statutory authority then actually any citizen could have arrested her or laid charges against her. In common law countries EVERYONE is the police

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Hellopenope April 10, 2009 at 8:34 am

    Didn’t George Harrison write a song about this governmental BS?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • atbman April 10, 2009 at 2:27 pm

    Just some observations.
    Chief Steve: UN treaty 1907? No UN until post WWII.
    Greg Caluori: sorry, but such legislation would not increase cyclists’ rights. Their existing rights are superior to those of drivers simply because they can go on the road unfettered by requirements to have a driver’s licence, pay an annual vehicle registration tax, have public liability insurance or have an annual vehicle safety test (where required).
    In other words, using a bike doesn’t affect your right to freedom of movement except in very limited areas, such as freeways (mostly)
    As for it making cyclists obey the law, it has worked so well with drivers, hasn’t it?
    As for thinking that when they have pocketed your ‘n’ hundred dollars, they’ll then spend it on cycling facilities, ho! ho! ho!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Chiefsteve April 10, 2009 at 11:27 pm

    yeah, there is a 1907 treaty but it is another story. its already well settled that a Right cannot be converted into a privilege. yes, it’s all smoke and mirrors LOL LOL. “Driving” is improper English, you’re really ‘moving’ unless you are conducting business upon the public ways, then you are driving, conducting, operating, for hire

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • lightfoot July 2, 2009 at 11:10 pm

    If bicyclist should pay a road tax then so should pedestrians

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Chiefsteve July 3, 2009 at 10:29 am

    Registration is a rule not a law. Without voluntary consent Rules cannot be enforced without Prior Restraint

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kristian July 3, 2009 at 11:57 am

    What is so frustrating about this bill is not the ridiculous notion or the exhortation price tag but the fact that it expands the government. Now we have to create a whole new department to track the registration of bicycles. In a few year they will raise the price because they need more money to pay for their damned new department. Come on you silly republican sponsors. You are making our party look bad. Remember we are the small government party. The one that gets out of the way of the people.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kristian July 3, 2009 at 11:59 am

    whoops spelling error meant to type exorbitant

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Chiefsteve July 4, 2009 at 10:51 am

    Well, then don’t consent and sue for Prior Restraint. I’m sure that they will be ready to prove it is a matter of national security (LOL) to take your bike (LOL)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Richard Lee October 20, 2009 at 7:34 am

    Fact #1 – A fee of $54 is absolutely ridiculous for registering a bike. At present you get it for free off the net at BikeRegistry. If they can do it for free, why does the government require $54??
    Fact #2 – Some of these stupid bills actually manage to get passed from time to time. This is one bill to that needs to be opposed vigorously by all those who might be affected either directly (us cyclists) or indirectly (every other Portland tax payer).

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jayson November 16, 2009 at 6:44 pm

    This bill has to be one of the most pathedic attemps to fund transportation that I have ever seen.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Oliver March 8, 2011 at 8:20 am

      It’s not an attempt to fund transportation, it’s an attempt to discourage cycling. Krieger and his ilk want bicycles ‘off’ the road.

      And Rondo, Has motor vehicle registration eliminated car theft?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rondo January 28, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    Sorry guys, but I’m totally in support of this. I’ve been to Portland three times, and all three times, someone in my party has had their bike ripped off, and yes, they were all locked. You should be registering your bike regardless whether or not its mandatory.

    Also, Portland and Eugene are pretty progressive when it comes to cycling, and there’s a cost to pay for all we benefit from. Its probably getting close to that time where we have to pay up. $54 bucks over 2-years is pretty cheap considering we’re not paying for gas.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Duck March 7, 2011 at 3:04 pm

      Well, I had my bike ripped off and it was parked in front of City Hall and it was registered and they even had a camera on the racks (although the camera doesn’t “record” it’s just for viewing purpose). And I don’t feel we should have to pay more in taxes just because we “ride a bike” and sometimes drive a car … and I think your statement of “not paying for gas” is just plain CRAZY .. we’re not polluting the air by riding a bike or tearing up the roads!

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • [...] From the state legislature in the state of Oregon: [...]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • El Biciclero March 8, 2011 at 9:04 am

    This story is from 2009.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

- Daily bike news since 2005 -
BikePortland.org is a production of
PedalTown Media Inc.
321 SW 4th Ave, Ste. 401
Portland, OR 97204

Powered by WordPress. Theme by Clemens Orth.
Subscribe to RSS feed


Original images and content owned by Pedaltown Media, Inc. - Not to be used without permission.