“Imposes license fee in amount sufficient to pay administrative costs, as determined by Department of Transportation. Creates offense of failure to register bicycle. Punishes by maximum fine of $250.”
— From summary of Senate Bill 177
(UPDATE, 9:05 am 1/27: Scroll down for a comment from the Salem, Oregon resident who requested this bill.)
Here we go again…
An Oregon legislator has introduced a bill that would mandate licenses for everyone over 18 years of age who rides a bicycle and would require them to pay a $10 fee to register their bikes. The bill would also prohibit the use of “state highway fund” dollars on “bicycle” projects and repeal ORS 366.154 (a.k.a. the “bike bill”).
Senate Bill 177 has been introduced by Senator Brian Boquist (R-12) “at the request of” a constituent. That “at the request of” part is important because it appears the bill is what’s known as a “constituent bill”. In other words, this isn’t a bill the senator himself is pushing for — he has merely accepted it and moved it along into a committee to appease a vocal constituent. In this case, the constituent is a man named Ted Campbell.
Sen. Boquist’s office referred us to Campbell and we’ve tried to reach him but have not heard back.
The senator himself replied by saying, “We generally introduce bills for constituents, then the citizen works the bill themselves regardless of the issue.”
Advertisement
While this bill might raise your blood pressure, keep in mind that, as Boquist alluded to, bills introduced “at the request of” seldom move forward beyond their initial committee assignment. One Salem insider told us that the moniker is an “informal but well-known kiss of death.” “It means Boquist won’t likely lift a finger to move the bill,” they added.
As someone who has seen similar policy ideas creep up in the past, I can say with much confidence that this bill no chance of moving forward. Even when the mandatory registration idea was championed by a legislator, like in 2009, the bill died in committee and was never taken seriously.
And who can forget Bob Huckaby, a northeast Portland business owner who once planned on leading a statewide ballot measure to make bicycling licenses and registration mandatory. That effort died too and we haven’t heard a peep from Huckaby for over two years now.
Unfortunately, all this reality doesn’t mean the local media isn’t likely to trumpet out SB 177 and try their best to fan the “cars vs. bikes” flames once again. But you know better. This bill might speak to people’s emotions, but it doesn’t do justice to the real problems with our state transportation policy that actually need attention.
For what it’s worth, here’s the summary of SB 177 as published on the State Legislature website:
Requires registration of certain bicycles. Imposes $10 registration fee. Creates bicycle license. Specifies procedure for obtaining license. Imposes license fee in amount sufficient to pay administrative costs, as determined by Department of Transportation. Creates offense of failure to register bicycle. Punishes by maximum fine of $250. Provides exemptions. Creates offense of failure to report change of ownership or change of address to department. Punishes by maximum fine of $250. Creates offense of failure to possess bicycle license. Punishes by maximum fine of $250. Provides exemptions. Prohibits use of State Highway Fund moneys for bicycle lanes, bicycle paths and bicycle trails. Establishes Bicycle Transportation Improvement Fund. Continuously appropriates moneys in fund to department for administration of bicycle registration and licensing programs and for bicycle related transportation improvement projects. Directs department to distribute moneys in fund to counties.
You can view the full text of the bill here.
UPDATE, 9:05 am on 1/27:
As I mentioned in the story, this bill was requested by a constituent of Sen. Boquist. His name is Ted Campbell and he’s a 71-year old retired mechanic who lives in Salem, Oregon. We talked to him on the phone last night to share his perspective. Below are some of his comments, edited for clarity:
“I see these bike lanes here in Salem and people don’t use them. They ride in the middle of the road. They run red lights… If a car did that they’d get a ticket.”
“I think my gas tax should be used to repair the road, not build bike lanes… I’ve heard people say, ‘I pay gas tax already,’ but they pay gas tax to drive on this road, not to ride bikes… And they ride into the traffic… And any time a bicyclist gets hurt they blame the motorist regardless of who’s at fault.”
“Down here at Salem city council somebody wanted a lane for longboards. They wanted their own lane to ride their longboard (skateboard). It’s just getting carried away! So I decided instead of sitting around and griping I’d do something about it.”
“We had a professor down here at Western Oregon University who said he wouldn’t ride until the county put a bike lane in on 99E. Than when it got put in he wouldn’t ride in it so he then he rode in the highway and got run over.” (This is a reference to a fatal collision in April 2012).
“I want people to got talk to their legislators about it (the bill). If nothing else, if it brings some attention to it that would satisfy me too. They need to get a ticket… They need to enforce the laws that are there.”
“The reason our roads are in such bad shape is the gas tax doesn’t go strictly to the roads. We need to fence it to just the roads.Fuel tax should be for maintaining the roads.”
“If it does nothing else other than get the police to enforce the laws that are there I’d be happier than heck.”
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
So what’s wrong with having a fund to pay for cycling infrastructure improvements? I’m sure those who don’t ride are sick of paying taxes for something they don’t use.
Because cycling is a underfunded mode of transportation that doesn’t need another barrier to stop it from being a reasonable mode. If people needed a license, less would ride. It’s a bill with the intention of discouraging riders. Also, taxes go to things you don’t directly use allllllll the time; this is a poor argument.
http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/bike-licensing-doesnt-work-just-ask-boris/
http://chi.streetsblog.org/2013/10/24/no-a-bike-license-fee-doesnt-make-any-sense/
http://www.activetrans.org/blog/tedvillaire/licensing-people-biking-will-discourage-new-cyclists
https://btaoregon.org/2012/09/bike-licenses-wont-fix-oregons-roads/
Then, it only makes sense that cyclist should not be compelled to contribute to funding auto lanes, yes?
Do you know how roads are funded?
I don’t have kids, but I don’t mind paying taxes for schools.
People who drive and refuse to/can’t ride a bike as an alternative should LOVE the opportunity to get others who will/are able to ride a bike instead of driving.
But I cycle and drive and seldom ride TriMet trains or buses, and I pay a portion of my income toward keeping TriMet operating. It doesn’t bother me because I know there’s a lot of people who ride the bus or MAX on a daily basis and it supports them. How is that different from drivers inadvertently paying for bicycle infrastructure?
“How is that different from drivers inadvertently paying for bicycle infrastructure?”
Well, it is different insofar as drivers are the reason we need bicycle infrastructure. Bicycling is not the reason we need Trimet service. But I wholeheartedly agree with your larger point.
One issue that sticks out immediately is that it would cost more than 10 dollars just to manage the bureaucracy around the registry, so the bill as written would have a cost to taxpayers associated with it. Not to mention that these laws are usually just a cudgle for the cops to harass homeless and minorities, see recent reports from Florida.
If I were right handed, it would really have bothered me that there was no tuition premium for supplying those two left handed desks in each lecture hall at Portland State. Those who don’t need them are sick of paying for them.
(Okay, I concede: a far from perfect analogy. Just…There are so many cases where the majority subsidizes the minority for the common good.)
——– Cyclist benefit drivers-less cars/congestion-Value? ——–
My question is how much is it worth to a driver to have a bike on the road instead of a car. Wouldn’t this be less congestion and faster commute times.
So the drivers that are paying a tax for bikes are getting use with:
-less congestion and
-quicker commute times,
-(less emissions, oil dependence, etc ).
By biking i use 13 gallons of gas less per month, just picture 13 gallon water jugs stacked up in a room.
I noticed that in certain suburbs that there is more congestion then in portland, and there is alot more people and density in the ciy.
Thanks for reading
–Please keep this code in your reply for my spam filter. ” asp ?. “—
when’s the last time you used a sidewalk? today?
did you pay for it?
I pay school taxes but have no kids in school. How is that any different? We don’t really get to personally designate where our tax dollars go. As a bike rider and a car owner and a property tax payer and an every other fee payer I’m a little disgusted by these people who say that I’m not paying for the privilege of riding my bike on their roads.
Makes sense to me, treat bicycles with more restrictions than we treat guns.
#Murika
There needs to be accountability for when rules are broken. I have witnessed bicyclist ignoring the rules of the road and making it dangerous for not only pedestrians but also vehicles. I agree with registering your bike, taking a class to become more educated, and even paying a fee.
Do you ride a bike? How often?
Do you feel that car drivers are held sufficiently accountable for violations?
Name some ways in which drivers, by having a license and registration, are “accountable” that bicyclists are “not accountable”.
I saw 3 drivers on their cell phones and 2 run stop signs on my ride to work today. I stopped at those stopped signs and managed to put the phone away for 25 whole minutes. I agree…lets start enforcing traffic laws. All of them, for everyone.
———- Drivers w/fault Killing Bikers-getting citation only ——–
If im not mistaken i have heard that when a driver kills a bike on the road even if its there fault, then they only get a citation. Do you think this holds drivers accountable enough?
Im for holding bicycles accountable on the day where I can ride with a video camera, and i can go to the authorities with this tape,when i catch a driver on tape:
-passing too close
-honking, flashing, disorderly conduct (intimidating, yelling,etc)
-following too close [#1 reason for accident i heard]
-hitting/killing god forbid;
and the authorities give the driver an adequate punishment, with maybe even some of it going to the cyclist as compensation.
If this happens they can treat a bike like a car with registration and drivers licenses.
Just a footnote Portland drivers are mostly respectful, but when i ride in some other towns in the state, they will just honk me off the road.
You can see it as a mark of progress that Boquist won’t get behind this.
You don’t use the roads, Jim?
Non-drivers pay almost the same as motorists for local roads but impose lower costs. As a result, they tend to overpay their share of roadway costs.
More sources for how automobile user fees don’t come close to covering the roads they use here
I disagree with most of what this bill would do, however I like the idea of creating a bike specific transportation fund. How this fund would recieve money would have to be determined. Options could include something similar to the art tax or a small fee on every bike purchase. Maybe all the bike shops mark items up a few cents and contribute the difference to the fund. Perhaps it is privately funded by donations or an opt in system of some type.
Having dedicated funds to contribute to existing projects could be used for the addition of protected bike lanes to existing street redesigns, additional bike specific infrastructure, or repaving parts of greenways that are not on par for bike freindly usage such as the two blocks between 41st and 39th on NE Going st. It could be used for the Clinton St traffic diverters or projects the city can agree to, but cannot fund with general transportation dollars.
It would have to be a delicate balance, an “in addition to” or further improvement fund rather than requiring all funding for any bike infrastructure come from this fund. It would be nice to have some financial way to impact plans created by the city to better serve the interests of the cycling community.
For example: If they are going to build out bike lanes on Sandy, but the city plans to only spend enough for a painted buffer, additional funds could be dedicated to this project through the Bicycle Transportation Improvement fund to cover the cost for a rumble strip, or some other further buffer.
Basically a fund to upgrade the cycling infrastructure already approved by the city.
I know that the whole system is much more complicated than this, but I think it would be an interesting option.
I’m in complete disagreement. A bicycle-specific fund, is completely backwards. Completely. Let’s illustrate:
You and your family decide to go out for a nice dinner. You’re shown to a table, and the room is so full of tobacco smoke you can barely see. You protest, and request the “non-smoking section”. The host/hostess says “Oh, there is the non-smoking supplimental fee to be applied”.
In truth, automobile users pay for the privilege of compressing time with petroleum. Why should non-motorists pay extra, for Not Doing Something? Remember, if it wasn’t for automobiles, bicycle infrastructure wouldn’t really be needed at all. These bicycle/pedestrian projects, are something called “remediation” for street users. If anything, cyclists should be provided a dividend, paid for by motorists.
The idea is a by cyclists for cyclists fund. If, as a community, we had funds of our own to invest in our own interests, little could be said by those who would rather see general funding spent elsewhere. Is it an ideal situation for getting the safest infrastructure available to us? No, but it is better than talking amongst ourselves about what we would like to have happen without action to take to make it happen.
With the political situation the way it is right now, the bike lobby is struggling and will most likely continue to do so until the time when the general situation changes or someone in government grows some balls to champion the cycling cause. If we can take action as a group to create a fund to support our specific needs, why should we not? Principle? How often does one get their way on principle? We are outnumbered, out funded and talked over. With funds dedicated for use for our specific interests, it would limit the ability of others to protest how funds were being spent.
This could become a completely private endeavor, with funds granted to the city to add further improvements to existing projects. A communal fund where those who know what the cycling community could really use could direct funding to further improve situations as a private partner with the city rather than a partly disenfranchised group who talks a lot and has much less sway than we all want. So you pay two bucks more for a tube or an extra ten on your new disk brakes, but you get a true buffered bike lane on Sandy and Powell, you get additional bike signals at intersections throughout the city, you get more say in redesigns like N Williams (because we all love how that project is turning out).
At some point, as with all special interest groups, we need to stop expecting to be treated equally and start taking care of ourselves and our own interests. Sure it is going to be complicated. We are going to have to get people working with the city, we are going to have to coordinate all the bike shops in town to get equal mark-ups on things (if we decide to go that route), we will have to find a group to manage the fund and determine the best investments, but the rewards could make us the happiest cyclists in the USA.
So we pay for our own stuff, I am willing to pay a few extra bucks if I can feel safe riding past the driveway at the N Williams New Seasons.
“At some point, as with all special interest groups, we need to stop expecting to be treated equally.”
You have been making thoughtful considered posts, I’m going to assume that I’m missing the context on this particular point, because otherwise.
No. Not Now, Not Ever.
I pay my taxes, and those taxes are used to fund the roadways which exist in the general right of way. I’m not giving that up.
To do what you’re talk about would cost more money than car registration for each bike. You talk as if a few extra bucks is all that is needed, but you’d be looking at hundreds, perhaps even thousands of dollars annually or biannually to per bicycle to make the changes you’re talking about.
ODOT and PDOT are Departments of Transportation. Notice they are not DMV Departments of Motor Vehicles. Departments of transportation, despite their seemingly unwavering focus on auto transport -are responsible for all transportation choices on public space…be it sneakers, skateboards, bicycles, cars, or Zambonis.
To illustrate your point, my county transit authority pays for Class I and II bike trails/lanes under a fund called “congestion mitigation” (that comes from state and federal grants, typically).
Can I use my bike license to buy booze, fly,or get all up in da club?
Thinking it would be a great Portland status symbol to only carry a bike license.
For years a United States Government issued Passport was not considered valid identification to get into bars as per Oregon Liquor Control Commission guidelines.
Personally, I wish that for every conversation-starting constituent bill about bike licensing, we could have one conversation-starting constituent bill about a tax of $2 (or something like that) on every bike innertube sold in the state. Something like that would bring in small but meaningful amounts of money, would be roughly proportional to usage, wouldn’t be a significant barrier to riding, would be pretty cheap to collect and would be an underground subsidy for tire patching classes. 🙂
Nothing’s been better for the auto industry than the gas tax, and it hasn’t stopped most governments from subsidizing auto use with general funds.
Given that it’s the automobile (user) who is incurring more of the expenses, paying proportionately less of their use, and incurring greater hazards on human-powered modes, I simply don’t understand any fees which further that imbalance. Why not fees on motorists to bring them up to parity?
Well, I wish we were starting those conversations every two years, too.
Deeper fears of PPD in the national spotlight for using unnecessary force in accusation of untaxed innertubes.
You can’t get them to tax studded tires which create real damage to the roads, and you come up with a $2 tax on bicycle tubes, which pretty much equates to 40%.
$2 per tube?! If you want to hurt local bike shops and drive customers to online sources, that’s the way to do it.
Hey, I’d settle for $1. But are tubes a high-margin item?
It seems to me that everyone in the bike industry would probably be better off with a meaningful stream of revenue dedicated to bike infrastructure, just as the gas tax has been a huge boon to the auto industry (when enacted at non-punitive American levels).
I think that this is a situation where you tax the behaviors that are damaging and use the funds to pay for things that encourage positive behaviors. As a driver AND a bike rider, I would be happy to pay a gas or mileage tax to provide for bike infrastructure. I would even be willing to pay for an on street parking permit (even though I have a driveway.)
Biking is a net gain for the city vis a vis infrastructure costs. Putting a tax on it is like taxing healthy food to pay for health education services.
That is assuming that the bike industry as whole is interested in doing something like this.
It seems to me the big boys in the industry are more interested in creating the new high end expensive bikes or creating unnecessary and foolish “new” bike styles (gravel bike anyone) and the “cyclist” lifestyle than selling lots of bikes.
Likewise they make more money propping up myths like riding a bike is so unsafe that helmets, reflective gear, and hi-vis must be worn at all times (safety gear is a much bigger mark up than the bikes). Or that you need a “kit” to ride comfortably.
Likewise they aren’t interested adding features making bikes more difficult to steal like locking front forks (which have been around forever, but no one makes them anymore) and stressing u locks (most can easily cut or broken without damaging the bicycle) over cafe style locks which are nearly impossible to break without damaging the bicycle.
The bike industry is interested in the bottom line. If they could see a profit in investing in infrastructure they’d already be doing it. Why do they support bike race teams, a sport which really not very many people pay attention to, and not bike share….because those that are into racing will spend a lot more money on their products than someone simply going to work or going to the store on a bicycle.
In many ways, I often feel that the bike industry in America isn’t very bike rider friendly. And though I don’t like it, I understand why. A well made bicycle is a durable good and one which if maintained well will last you a lifetime (except for carbon). Because of that they must create new markets to stay in the black.
“It seems to me the big boys in the industry are more interested in creating the new high end expensive bikes or creating unnecessary and foolish “new” bike styles (gravel bike anyone) and the “cyclist” lifestyle than selling lots of bikes.”
Why shouldn’t they at this point? They’ve seen what success car companies have had with ridiculous things like SUV’s.
I think this very site is telling. We have some of the most hard-core commuting cyclists in the country on this site, but many of them eschew anything over $1K for a bike (and this is Portland where people claim to love utilitarian bikes, how do you think it is Cleveland or Nashville or Oklahoma City?). Harder for a bike company to really make a lot of profit with a market like that for commuters. Racers/high end riders on the other hand offer a lot more space to turn a profit.
I agree with what you’re saying, but I also understand why the industry is like it is now.
I like this idea. Perhaps this type of fund could start out as a voluntary fund effort of the willing of bike stores. Initial funds would seed lobbying, organizing and and advocacy work to make it a reality.
Index the gasoline tax directly to the cost of asphalt and concrete.
The 50’s bike highway cost 1.5 million dollars or 750,000 tubes at a $2 bike tire tax.
Oregon has a population of roughly 4 million people. Of which – what, at best 2% of ride regularly enough to buy more than one set of tires or tubes every year or two.
And you think this will come close to funding Netherlands style infrastructure around here?
math is great!!!!!
reminds me of when you needed to get a snowboarding license to hang with the those on skis…
Those were the days……….
I don’t drive and haven’t for years, but am glad to pay my fair share (and more if I have a vote as to where to $ goes) to support roads and bicycle infrastructure. I think the idea of licensing riders will deter some people and if folks are ticketed for not having a license I imagine it will be poorer, already disenfranchised groups that are hit the hardest. The idea of some poor sod getting ticketed for riding their bike to work without a ‘license’ is super frustrating to me. Also, I wonder how much implementing something like this would cost. Maybe put that money into community rider education and/or driver re-education. There are better ideas out there (GirlontwoWheels has some!) and hope this fails.
I think a key point of the funding conversation issue is that most motor vehicle operators are unaware they are not even paying their fair share via fuel fees. And even if they were convinced, who would willingly give up a subsidy they don’t percieve, like free parking in the public right of way?
BTA, how about some PSAs or billboards pointing out the current fair share issues?
Or maybe BikeLoud?
“BTA, how about some PSAs or billboards pointing out the current fair share issues?”
Maybe let’s not encourage the BTA to tackle that one, again. Maybe bikeportland? Or we could invite Todd Litman to come down for a stint, give a talk to PBOT.
No thanks.
I really don’t think we need to spend any more time “making the case” about this. The people who don’t agree with cycling in general and who want to maintain the status quo will not be persuaded by us making cycling look better.
I have long been annoyed by advocacy/advocates that think, “If we just did a better job making our case everyone would agree and support us!”
We just need to move forward and build stuff, change policies, and so on. That’s what will move the needle. It’s called leadership.
And lo and behold, I read this NYTimes Op-Ed by Paul Krugman a few weeks ago that I think says basically the same thing (that you can’t convince haters to support your ideas just by making a better argument)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/opinion/paul-krugman-hating-good-government.html?_r=0
Well, I see this not as a way to ‘win over’ those who refuse to acknowledge the present funding situation, as a once-and-for-all, but rather as a contribution to the ongoing conversation, a point of reference going forward, some well-reasoned pushback, an opportunity to shift the center of gravity from wall-to-wall misinformation to a more interesting and more expansive look at the subject.
The conversations here on bikeportland have shaped how I think about these issues. I didn’t know much about any of this 6 years ago, or whenever I first stumbled onto this site.
I hear you 9watts.
maybe my comment was a bit reactive. I am just tired of that dynamic that says we can’t expect any progress on bike stuff until we get better at making the case. At some point we must act on what we know.
I’m still struggling (in a tiny ant-like way) with issues that my parents and grandparents advocated over, and in most of those cases society is making its glacial progress in the right directions…civil rights, freedom from tyranny, whole earth as examples. It makes sense to me that you (Maus) would decline some specific actions (PSA, billboard, Litman) in favor of others, but that hardly means you are not “making the case.” Heck, everything you publicly do is about “making the case!” Sure, leadership needs to do its part but it can’t do that without dedicated followers (at least in a non-tyrannical state), and “making the case” is part and parcel of securing that following. In Krugman’s piece that you cited, his second-to-last sentence is, “This doesn’t mean that those of us who care about evidence should stop seeking it out.”
“that dynamic that says we can’t expect any progress on bike stuff until we get better at making the case.”
Oh. That.
No, I’ve never had any truck with that. I don’t think progress on bike stuff hinges/should hinge on that.
I just like to set people straight who aren’t making any sense. 🙂
“I really don’t think we need to spend any more time “making the case” about this.”
we haven’t spent any time making the case for how much we pay people to drive… we’ve been trying to make the case of how much cyclists pay their fair share…
nobody has made the case to point out how much drivers are paid to drive… which is what paikiala is saying should be done…
how would anti-government types feel about a huge billboard stating how much their government is paying them per mile to drive their car…
that’s it, no message either way, just a plain statistic… nothing about funding mechanisms or bicycles, just plain and simple text on a billboard…
“Government pays drivers $x/mile to drive on roads.”
then people can start asking what it’s about and where the numbers and the money comes from…
Cap and trade for transportation green house gases could be another source of funding. Whenever they spend money catering to automobile traffic, then a cap could be structured to force simultaneous funding for VMT reduction, to offset the (misguided) LOS driven VMT increase.
The issue with LOS is not that is misguided, but that the scale confuses those that see it and don’t understand the meaning. It is a misguided application that is the problem. A letter grade A in math is good, but in traffic delay is wasteful at peak hour. Most progressive cities shoot for D or E during peak hours, since that is the most efficient movement of people.
Wonder how this would affect bicycle tourism? I assume even visitors would be required to register their bike or face a $250 ticket, and then also get a bike license or face another $250 ticket? “Welcome to Oregon”…
presuming out of state riders would be one of the exemptions, but how do you tell them from the locals, moss?
Not sure… Guess we’ll just have to pull every single cyclist over and check their papers…
Is this the same Ted Campbell that is involved with the Oregon chapter of the Minutemen?
http://www.minutemanhq.com/state/read.php?chapter=OR&sid=884
I can only image it’s the same guy… If so, how ironic is it that Ted, with his minutemen, is working hard to prevent one group of people from obtaining a vehicle license (illegal immigrants), yet on the other hand he’s working to force a different group (cyclists) to get one. I’ll bet the thought of an illegal immigrant riding a bike would make his head implode… He wouldn’t know which way he’d want to control that person’s life.
After we give people who bike $1,000 a year for the avoided health care costs for being active people (estimate from the CDC), I’m happy to talk about bike fees.
I wonder who this mysterious “Ted Campbell” is. Any info out there on this guy?
he just emailed me back so I’ll talk to him on the phone. watch for an update either tonight or tomorrow morning.
Whoever he is and whatever his experience on the road and in Oregon has been, hopefully, he really has thought through what he’s proposing with this constituent bill, and isn’t doing it just to get a load off his chest.
The summary of what a couple years ago, Huckaby suggested would be his proposal for a law (he seems never to have got much further than the summary.), did have some positive elements that sought, with basic biking instruction, to prepare people for biking in traffic.
Other parts of what it seemed he was proposing, appeared to cater to people in the state that may simply resent use of the road by people biking. Huckaby apparently didn’t do his homework on the issues associated with use of the road with bikes, and so wasn’t prepared for what he needed to do to have his idea move forward.
But let’s not forget, wsbob, that a license is not about certification but about permission. The below is from a conversation you and I were having 2-1/2 yrs ago about Huckaby’s version of this nonsense.
Watts, none of my words are in that excerpt you say is from a conversation the two of use had, some time back. The excerpt is all stuff you dragged up from somewhere, that really has little at all to do with what I believe was Huckaby’s main objective in seeking some sort of licensing for people that bike.
His initial main objective was to introduce some form of instruction and training for people biking in traffic, to increase their ability to safely and effectively travel on a bike in traffic situations. Personally, I continue to feel that bike in traffic knowledge, instruction and training is a great idea, that people presently have no legal obligation whatsoever to.
Some sort of documentation confirming that a person preparing to bike in traffic, has completed and passed an accepted, standardized study and testing, would logically be issued to the person, to show they’ve done the work.
For those drivers who don’t understand that most of the bikes they pass on their commute would otherwise be cars in front of them, I’ve sometimes thought to propose a uniform “vehicle fee” for cars and bikes. Let’s say, $1-per-pound of vehicle weight.. each year. A fee that’s standard and directly proportional to road wear and burden. Let’s pay our fair share…
Road wear is proportional to weight to the fourth power.
And that includes the things carried by the vehicle, so passengers as well. So, $1*((vehicle weight + average passenger wt*average # passengers)/200)
How is the trucking weight-mile tax calculated?
A $1/ann bicycle fee would be a $8000/ann Cadillac Escalade tax, and a $160,000,000/ann semi tax. Hey, we could balance the state budget and build Dutch-quality (by the CROW manual, not some imaginary “Dutch”) bike infrastructure all over the state.
This is a long overdue idea and I don’t think it goes far enough. Why stop with bikes? Scooters, unicycles, and skateboards should require licenses. And after that roller skates and wheelchairs! And then shoes! Imagine what it would do for our poor underfunded streets budget if you had to register every pair of shoes and have a license for walking!
And then there are those damned state and national parks and public beaches that we subsidize…
$2 tax for shoelaces.
it’ll help pay for all those sidewalks nobody ever uses…oh wait..
I can’t wait to get my pedestrian license!
Can you get a pedestrian license for half price if you hop around on one foot?
I think we should counterattack and propose a bill that dedicates 2% to the “bike bill” instead of just 1%. In yo’ face!
Good idea. Sen. Boquist will introduce it for you!
I wonder if he will introduce any serious bill brought to him by a constituent?
Distribution of transportation funding by mode share per census block!
Sure, tax inner tubes. And tax studded car & truck tires an equivalent percentage. (Taxing inner tubes would probably result in more people learning how to patch them, instead of wastefully throwing away a tube after a single puncture.)
If I knew that the tube tax was going to infrastructure, etc, I’d pay it. Better to support the local shops so that they’re there when you need them than to get cheap, buy tubes on-line, and end up with fewer local bike shops, right?
Metal-studded tires need a tax. Yes. They destroy the so many Oregon roads which rarely resemble the Arctic.
The overhaul of crash corner in Raleigh Hills, Oregon needs design work to accommodate bikes.
It already accommodates bikes. You’re more than welcome to take the lane, rick.
A re-design would be a piece of cake, what it needs is funding for ROW and construction.
Republicans are always in favor of small government, but they’ll make an exception when it comes to opportunities to stick it to liberals.i
I wonder if there would be more support for this legislation from folks here if the money collected went towards a program for registration and titling of bicycles so that the buying and selling of bikes by legit enterprises could be ‘e-verified’. It could be the beginnings of a way to thwart the bicycle thieving problem we have in Portland which is used to fund a pretty rampant drug problem. The way I look at it, every bike theft that occurs, has the very real problem of endangering the investment which has already been made in bicycle infrastructure improvements—-lanes, bridges, etc… in Portland and the surrounding metro area. I am curious to know what others think about this….
Interesting you mention this Darren. I’m always surprised at the great outrage whenever a bike registration fee is brought up here on Bike Portland. In Hawaii, there is a $10 bike registration fee when you buy a new bike. The bike shops take care of the paperwork for you, you get a sticker on your bike, and you have paperwork. Then when you buy (or sell) a bike, you transfer the registration/paperwork, just like you do when you buy (or sell) a used car. It doesn’t stop bike theft, but it does help, as a used bike purchaser, the consumer feel a tiny bit more confident that what they are buying wasn’t stolen.
I believe the fee goes into the same ‘pot’ at the car registration fee (so it is all equally mismanaged and Oahu has, by far, the worst roads I’ve ever ridden/driven on regularly). But I really don’t see the registration fee as this terrible burden or barrier to getting on a bike.
that would just mean more trips across the river to sell stolen bikes in WA where there’s no registration requirement or tracking…
Lol just saw the news story… old curmudgeon just saying he wants to make scofflaws accountable.
Exactly, and no mention of the red light runners and cell phone talkers and drivers in the bike lane that we all see every day.
I heard there will be an exemption from the fee for 650b wheeled bikes.
UPDATE:
As I mentioned in the story, this bill was requested by a constituent of Sen. Boquist. His name is Ted Campbell and he’s a retired government worker from Dallas, Oregon. We talked to him on the phone last night to share his perspective. Below are some of his comments, edited for clarity:
“If nothing else, if it brings some attention to it that would satisfy me too.”
Ah the old Mitch Greenlick/Tobias Reed approach… I think of this as a conversation starter. What a pack of misinformation and prejudice and vengefulness.
Oh this is just kind of sad. I have no desire to dogpile on this guy or refute his ideas. Fish, barrel, smoking gun; move along, move along.
Oh man. A PERS retiree complaining about “freeloading cyclists”. This is great.
“…We talked to him on the phone last night to share his perspective. …” maus/bikeportland
He’s due some credit for at least making the effort to talk about road and bike use related issues, as reasonably as he may be able to at this point, with bikeportland. I think of the wide range of perspective, knowledge, and skills in discussing issues that affect Oregon resident’s lives, of all people all across the state.
Conditions for everyone are ultimately going to be better, the more people there are that are at least interested in important issues, and are prepared to expend some effort to seriously think them through.
Quick question… if I accidentally ram into a convertible because the sun was in my eyes, and my front wheel flies off, killing the driver with my disc rotor, how long until I get my bike license back? I’m just wondering because I need it to get to work.
$10 for a 25lb bike, I can go for that but to be fair, a 2500lb car should pay $1000, bikes can now use all interstate highways, no more street parking that, is now a bike travel lane, speed limits will be lowered to average of bikes and cars, no emitting toxic chemicals into the air, laws not pertaining to bikes will not have to be obeyed by cyclists, I have my $10, I’m ready.
Ted Campbell = “Get off my lawn!!!”
“And anytime the bicyclist gets hurt, they blame the motorist regardless who’s at fault.”
My experience in reading news articles of bike/car crashes or car/car crashes is different. If a car rear ends another car the blame normally goes to the car in the rear. If a car rear ends a bike, “the police are investigating the accident.”
Mr. Campbell has obviously no experience riding a bike on the road and is in no way qualified to comment on the subject.
So basically this Ted Campbell guy just doesn’t understand how things work.
In that case, maybe some taxes need to be directed to motorist education about road funding and what goes where to prevent this kind of misguided thing in the future.
I wish there were more transparency in government finances so that I didn’t have this type of conversation on a weekly basis.
I don’t know that that would really help. I’m curious what percentage of the population could even name the mayor of Portland?
Yeah, that’s all too true. Still, I’ve done some combing around for basic info about street funding and it’s just not readily available as up-to-date and specific-to-jurisdiction data, and it really should be easily available to at least those citizens who are interested enough to look for it.
““Down here at Salem city council somebody wanted a lane for longboards. They wanted their own lane to ride their longboard (skateboard).”
Uh. No.
right? that’s one of the strangest things I’ve read in a long time. I’m guessing he didn’t quite hear something correctly or is listening to the wrong people talk. From what I’ve read, a few skateboards were inquiring local government to allow they access to use bike lanes legally after getting a ticket or two.
Let’s not turn the focus back on the uninformed car drivers, but instead attack the proposed bill for what it is…poor policy.
Bike registration and licensing hits economically-challenged people the hardest. The people who have no other choice but to ride a bike.
Andy K, can you explain why car drivers are uninformed? Interested in how one judges other people based on their choice of transportation at that time. Also, if someone bikes part of the time but also drives a car-
does that make them bi-polar? Do they swing between enlightened and uninformed? I look forward to your response.
Sorry, should have clarified my statement. It was directed at people who drive a car AND complain about how their tax money is spent WITHOUT knowing how it is spent, but in truth in can be directed at any uninformed complainer.
Also, Andy, with all delicacy, you asserted as fact, the idea that America “steals” Arab oil. I believe that to be make believe. But I would be happy to hear evidence that the US has stolen Arabian oil the way US companies have arguably stolen palm oil.
“the idea that America ‘steals’ Arab oil. I believe that to be make believe.”
Can you say Mossadeq?
http://jah.oxfordjournals.org/content/99/1/208.full
“Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”—Jimmy Carter, state of the union address, Jan. 23, 1980
at least in the O’live story (http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/01/the_oddball_bill_bowl_for_the.html) they kind of admit that it’s not a worthy bill…
“We chose them not because they’re trivial, but because the problems they address are far – and we mean far – out of the Legislature’s purview or because what they propose is so extreme or unusual as to be odd.”
but that doesn’t stop them from asking in the poll which is odder: gun education in schools or bicycle registration… more voters thought gun education in school was odder…
one would think their readers would rather have untrained children wielding firearms rather than let those scofflaw cyclists get off scot-free!
Only if the vehicle weight exceeds the fatigue strength of the roadway – which most passenger vehicles do not.
Mmm…my understanding is that is surface wear, not roadbed collapse or plastic deformation, but I don’t have a source for that. Paikiala?
I do, AASHTO study released in 1999. To be precise the formula was based on axle load, not GVW, because one overloaded axle can destroy a road even when the vehicle is under legal limits. The study found that surface wear for the same type of tire was also proportional to the weight of the heaviest axle ^4, but because there are numerous other variables involved in surface wear there was a lot of scatter in the data.
Thanks, Opus.
Cool, so if a constituent sent Bo Boquist a bill requiring stricter background checks for gun sales, he’d just pass it right along?
(Somehow I doubt it.)
studded tires WHY? lol
build more human infra please, not go after the ppl that have less of impact on the roads.
And remember, bicycles aren’t why we send the US military to murder Arabs and steal their oil.
Well, thanks to fracking’s promises of plenty we don’t need their oil anymore, right?!
No, the trucks that deliver beer and bike parts are the reason we murder Arabs and steal their oil. Dave, can you explain how the US steals oil from the United Arab Emirates? Quite the undertaking.
“No, the trucks that deliver beer and bike parts are the reason we murder Arabs and steal their oil.”
That is quite a reach, O.M.
Delivery of bike parts trumps driving (automobility) when it comes to our military priorities in the Gulf?!
It was joke, Mr. Watts- a joke about over-the-top language.
Dave,
You seriously don’t get my point Whatever transportation a Portlander uses- their food, their clothes, their beer, their bicycles- those nouns were transported using fossil fuels.
Please, all my critics, sit with that idea for ten minutes. The food you are eating right now- whether 29 cent ramen or $12.00 Yazuki ramen with organic octopus- it came on a TRUCK.
“…their food, their clothes, their beer, their bicycles- those nouns were transported using fossil fuels.”
“The food you are eating right now […] it came on a TRUCK.”
Not necessarily. I appreciate your invoking fossil fuels, but when it is just to jeer at us from the sidelines I fail to see the point. Just because you may not have tried, or it is hard to do, doesn’t mean some of us couldn’t be working hard every day to wean ourselves off fossil fuels.
Let’s take those four in turn:
food – some of this we grow ourselves: no fossil fuels for that fraction that I can think of. We do still use a natural gas stove to cook but we’re working on phasing that out too.
clothes – I don’t buy any new clothes except some underwear and socks, once in a blue moon. Everything else I just wear until it falls to pieces and replace with something from Goodwill. I don’t sew my own but it is possible. Many people do.
beer – I don’t happen to drink any, but a lot of that is made locally, no?
bicycles – I haven’t bought a new bike since 1987 (Made in USA). I still ride it. My bikes are all 25-30 years old. I use tires that other people have thrown out, patch the tubes, grease my chain with oil left in the bottom of those ’empty’ quarts of motor oil people toss by the side of the road. Brake pads I do buy occasionally, and cables and a chain every ten years or so.
I think it would be much more constructive if you allowed for the possibility that your fellow citizens are already tackling this problem, nibbling away at it. Maybe show some curiosity rather than telling us what failures we all are.
Based on Mr. Campbell’s comment:
“The reason our roads are in such bad shape is the gas tax doesn’t go strictly to the roads. We need to fence it to just the roads.Fuel tax should be for maintaining the roads.”
We should give him what he wants, roads should only be paid for by gas taxes and not by the general fund, I hope he likes paying $6.00 per gallon like they do in Europe.
Nice catch, Slow Joe Crow!
But his point is actually a pretty common misperception. A misreading of how the history of road funding has evolved. Maybe Michael A/Todd Littman/J_R would write a little piece addressing this? I’d be happy to help.
As paraphrased: it will not be possible to win either side over in the argument.
The thing to remember is that we pay for everything we do in public. Want to be on the mountain, pay the recreation pass fee. Want to hike a trail, pay the trailhead fee. Same goes for parking, camping or even launching your boat.
We as cyclists need to understand that nothing is free and we’ve been very lucky so far that we’ve had a free ride.
…Except that those who ride bikes haven’t had, and aren’t getting a free ride. Your examples are all of recreational activities that are optional for people to participate in; travel for essential trips is a different story. People have to have a way to get around that is affordable for them and suits their needs for getting to work, to school, to businesses, etc. Roadways used for transportation are paid for by everyone, whether they choose to ride a bike or not. Those who choose to drive cars, trucks, and SUVs on those roads necessarily pay extra because use of those vehicles is so costly and destructive to everyone’s roads.
Anyone who chooses to use a bike for their transportation needs is doing their small part to keep down the cost of maintaining those roads for everyone.
This isn’t really about dictating freedom of movement. Our Constitution states freedom of movement is a fundamental right. Our Constitution does not guarantee all methods of movement are free. It is true roadways are paid for by everyone. If you own a boat, you pay a fee that goes towards the road. If you own a RV, you also pay a fee. If you have three cars, a boat and a RV, you pay more. Seems reasonable for the “pay to use” rules to apply to everyone. Just like if you have two cars, if you have two bikes, you pay two fees.
See my comment above to help you understand how roads are paid for and how non-motorists (bicyclists and pedestrians) overpay for their share of the roads, and also Paikiala’s comment about bike licensing.
“Just like if you have two cars, if you have two bikes, you pay two fees.”
Whoa. Now just a minute. Notwithstanding the misconceptions you seem to be operating under, our roads right now are not paid for solely by user fees. By some estimates those might cover about half of the cost to build and maintain the roads, which, it is important to note parenthetically, are built to standards and widths that are vastly in excess of what nonmotorized vehicles require. So the balance of the costs to maintain the roads we already have comes from taxpayers like you and me (who lv2bike, right?) I don’t own a car, don’t pay any gas taxes (directly) but my other taxes that I as a property owner, a self-employed individual, etc. pay make up that difference. N’est-ce pas?
“Our Constitution does not guarantee all methods of movement are free.”
As for the constitution, I am assuming you are talking about permission not costs, yes? (The constitution doesn’t have anything to say about user fees.) Because movement by foot or bike or skateboard or rollerblade is not something we need the government’s permission to use. Locomotion is not subject to licensing like driving a car or a motorcycle or flying an airplane. We can talk about why this distinction exists, but I just wanted to clear up some misconceptions first.
meant to include a link, sorry.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-user-fees-pay-only-half-state-local-road-spending
As I said before: As paraphrased: it will not be possible to win either side over in the argument.
But that said — educating cyclists is something that cant hurt. I watch and ride with too many who believe road rules are for other people (or some other excuse like “It’s not efficient to stop at every sign”)
“it will not be possible to win…”
“educating cyclists is something that cant hurt.”
I see. So what in your view does education accomplish in light of this, your fatalistic view of arguments?
El Biciclero, Alan 1.0, and I are trying to educate you about transportation funding. Not sure how well we’re doing though.
“El Biciclero, Alan 1.0, and I are trying to educate you about transportation funding. Not sure how well we’re doing though.”
I understand that transportation funding is mismanaged. Frankly, much of the states funding is in this state. The odd thing is that the information is public, but you have to wade through hundreds of report pages to get it. The problem with taking information from sites, such as in the one you provided from taxfoundation.org, is you assume they did their homework correctly. I have found that often (as with anyone -lol) there is an agenda that sku’s the data, or a mistake was made because the reports are so cumbersome.
To really make things right, we have to make our government accountable. But that is a whole different topic that the senate bill we are discussing 🙂
This senate bill is big brother trying to get more money that frankly I dont think they need. However — linked inside this bill are some things that I think we really do need. Mandatory bikers education. Not too long ago a law was passed requiring boaters to take a class if they wanted to drive a boat. I hated the law as it was packaged just like this bike bill. But honestly, I was surprised how to changed things on the water. I think we need a way to make bikers (including myself) accountable. There are too many of us that ride in a disrespectful and impervious to the law way. This bill is not perfect, but it’s a foot in the door.
Whoops sorry, I meant to give the link to where much of the public funding data is: http://www.oregon.gov/transparency/Pages/state_budget.aspx#State_Budget:_2013_-_2015
“…This senate bill is big brother …” lv2bike
Big Brother? Looks to be more of a shirt tail cousin to which one of Oregon’s legislators, as part of his job, offered some consideration. The bill likely will go nowhere beyond a bit of water cooler and weblog chatter. Even citizen Ted Campbell himself in his comments to bikeportland, acknowledges this.
“…I think we need a way to make bikers (including myself) accountable. …” lv2bike
I really don’t think that putting the screws to people that with bikes, use the roads for travel, and then violate road use laws, is a primary objective of these bike license and registration law proposals that come up from time to time. At least, it shouldn’t be.
The best outcome that could come from some kind of law like this, would be to oblige people whose type of biking would bring them into demanding traffic situations, to acquire some bike specific knowledge, training and skill for those situations. Such a law wouldn’t have to apply to every person astride a bike, or to every bike in the state. Only to those that would may frequently be found in demanding traffic situations, such as on busy downtown streets, thoroughfares and highways.
Ted Campbell’s proposal isn’t likely to get such a point across, I don’t think, but what I think his comments may do to some extent, is resonate with people that have had it being stressed out from trying to avoid collisions with people riding bikes on the road and demonstrating no reliable ability to safely ride a bike in traffic. And, there is insufficient effort on the part of people and groups that endorse biking as an effective means of road travel, to address and respond thoughtfully, with viable proposals to address the problems that Campbell speaks of.
“…resonate with people that have had it being stressed out from trying to avoid collisions with people riding bikes on the road…”
Bikey people causing stress for people in cars. Wow.
Me too actually .. because I ride both peddled and motorized two wheel vehicles.
Interesting related factoid: When you take the rider safety course for motorcycles, they teach almost like it was one of the 10 commandments: “They (cars) don’t see you and they will try to run you over, so you are in the end the one ultimately responsible for your safety”
Stress for both cars and bikes gets reduced with training… …and I hate saying it because I’m one of them, but non-motorized bikey people are a wee bit behind when it comes to road responsibility and/or knowledge.
“…Bikey people causing stress for people in cars. Wow. …” watts
People riding bikes are the vulnerable road users amongst motor vehicles in use. People riding, that aren’t doing so in ways that are safe on roads where motor vehicle use is significant, create stressful situations for people driving.
People that ride, or that encourage use of bikes for transportation, initiating efforts to implement a base level of skilled riding on the part of people biking in traffic, could go a long way towards resolving some of the danger associated with riding a bike amongst motor vehicles.
“I think his comments may…resonate with people that have had it being stressed out from trying to avoid collisions with people riding bikes on the road and demonstrating no reliable ability to safely ride a bike in traffic.”
And those who have had it being stressed out from trying to avoid collisions with people driving cars? What about them?
I think the complaints of anyone who complains about “those bikers” will resonate with anyone who has the same complaints, regardless of the reason. I think quite often drivers get stressed out because they don’t know what to do when encountering a cyclist on the road. Do I stay behind? Do I have to pass? Can I pass? Am I supposed to yield? Can I drive in the bike lane? Are they supposed to be on this street? Why is he riding in the middle of the road???! Dear God! He’s trying to make a left like he thinks he’s a car! Whaddoido-whaddoido-whatddoido??!! In my own experience, most driver “stress” is caused by a lack of driver training and knowledge.
I would bet money that if more bicycle operators rode according to safety principles taught in classes such as Cycling Savvy or the LAB road courses, there would be more angry drivers rather than fewer—simply because there would be more cyclists that refused to stay “out of the way” when safety demanded it.
I would say that if you want cyclists to undergo some kind of mandatory training, make it an alternative to paying for a citation received for riding in a way that appeared to be due to insufficient training.
Comment of the Month!!
“…And those who have had it being stressed out from trying to avoid collisions with people driving cars? What about them? …” bic
Dealing with those kinds of stressful situations, is part of what biking in traffic training and education for people that ride, would help provide.
I submit that since a significant majority of bicyclists also own cars, integrating some fundamental education on how bicyclists (should) ride in traffic into driver education – and making driver education a recurring requirement – would be multitudes more effective (and far cheaper to taxpayers) than any bike licensing program. Even something so simple as an acknowledgement that it’s actually legal for a bicyclist to ride in a traffic lane would go a long way, let alone putting bike-related questions into driver exams.
In general, the rationale for operation of vehicles on the road is not necessarily clear, common knowledge, I don’t think. Some ideas readily come to mind, but maybe not all of them, or all them that are important and helpful to safe use of the road for everyone.
Without having tried to sort out all the various reasons there may be for why licensing is required to operate motor vehicles on the road…(and in relatively few, but some places around the world, bikes as well)…it seems to me that a main reason that stands out, associated with having made an obligation of people that want to drive, to pass some tests to get a driver’s license, is that it give such people some encouragement to study and practice capable and safe road use with a motor vehicle. Also, something about the laws that help to manage individual’s use of the road.
It seems there’s plenty of people that have not wanted to drive, and so have not prepared for and taken driver’s licensing tests. Going into the future, there’s reason to believe that increasing number’s of people are in this category. Long story short, expecting that all the people using the road on a bike will have, or will acquire knowledge of how to capably and safely travel the road on a bike where motor vehicles are in use, often in great numbers…seems overly optimistic.
If it can be accepted that tests obliged for authorization to drive motor vehicles helps people to drive safely and capably, it logically follows that some of the people using the road with other vehicles such as bikes, and that haven’t been obliged to demonstrate they have the knowledge that’s part of the driver’s tests, may account in part for why many people don’t ride well in traffic, or perhaps worse…don’t ride, or won’t even consider riding.
To help having more of the people riding bikes on the road, be able to do so capably and safely, is what to me seems the strongest of all reasons for considering some kind of licensing procedure for people using the road with bikes.
People need licenses to drive cars because they’re dangerous things. The whole evolution that’s brought us to air bags and anti-locks and electronic skid protection and safety inspections and the certifications that we’re competent enough to pilot these things comes from the damage they’ve forced auto insurers to shell out money on over decades. If and when bicycling becomes so popular that people are maimed and killed left and right, then you’ll start to see lobbyists from the insurance industry take notice, and maybe ultimately the administrative overhead of bike licensing programs.
In general we agree on the state of, and need for, education for both safe bicycle and automobile use. I personally believe the cost of modernizing and overhauling driver education is incremental, whereas introducing mandatory bicyclist certification brings with it a whole slate of challenges (that have been discussed ad nauseam here before). SVBC and CalBike even worked directly with California DMV administrators (at their request) to make some incremental improvements already, and the DMV people remain willing to engage (and even complained that some of the bike orgs never got back to them after repeated requests to collaborate).
Yes, newer generations are showing more inclination towards car-free households (and the poorest can’t afford cars, which is why donations to them from dealerships makes such benevolent news), but the fact remains that the majority of bicyclists in the US today also own cars, so I still believe licensing programs are at least a platform for delivery of (some) bicyclist education – especially in the absence of a practical implementation of the mandatory proposals. Overly optimistic… I quite agree.
Expanding current licensing programs for road use with motor vehicles to include bike specific, in traffic knowledge, skills and techniques, with an on the road test demonstrating proficiency at riding a bike in traffic (for people physically able to ride a bike.) for people intending to have that be an in traffic mode of travel…and then somehow obligate people that are going to ride in traffic, to study the material and take the test..is maybe all that’s needed.
Vehicle Departments might need some increase in their budget for additional staffing, materials, training, and so on. Perhaps at least initially, to encourage participation, people that were testing to just ride a bike, and not be licensed to drive, might get their testing free of charge. Either way, having studied and been tested for both motor vehicle (minus the on the road driving test.) and bike in traffic proficiency, many people today that ride but have never driven, by way of the testing, may have some increase in familiarity than they do under present situation, with both the driving and the riding road use spectrum.
Jonathan- I assume you were simply reaching out for comment, but did you have any 2-way discussion? Just curious
Under what authority does the state claim the right to outlaw bike riding in order to sell the privilege back to you under threat of violence the first place? What about the basic human right to travel?
Typical Republican hypocrisy. Sen. Boquist votes against taxes to support public health and education but sees a need for a new tax on bicycles. Obviously there is a political agenda here that has nothing to do with the real reason for decreased highway funds. How about abolishing the tax ‘kicker’ return and using that money for road maintenance instead? If the roads are really in that bad of shape, there shouldn’t be a tax surplus.