The topic of bicycle licensing has been growing into more than a buzz lately. It’s often brought up around watercoolers and on web forums, and at this year’s Oregon Bike Summit, one of the keynote speakers (Oregon Transportation Commission Chair Gail Achterman) suggested that licensing bicycles is a “conversation” we need to have, and soon.
If she’s right, we’ll be right there in the thick of it. In the meantime, I’ve come across two interesting articles in the past few days that offer a chance to start that conversation a bit early.
The first is a story in the Times of India about legendary historical figure Mahatma Gandhi, who in his younger days as a lawyer in South Africa (from 1903 to 1905) wrote and protested against a bike licensing law aimed at African natives in Johannesburg. The law required one sector of the population to acquire a bicycle license and to display a numbered badge on the left arm when riding in the city.
“Bicyclers across the region are known as accommodating and uncomplaining — as long as they get their way. Now is the time for them to show it by contributing to the public trough.”
— Seattle Times’ editorial page editor James Vesely
According to the article, Gandhi — who was a bicycle commuter during his time in South Africa (6 miles a day), and used bicycles frequently in subsequent years in India — thought this was “an obnoxious idea and fought it hard.”
The second piece is an editorial published on Sunday by Seattle Times columnist (and editorial page editor) James Vesely that’s bluntly titled Impose License Fee on King County Cyclists.
Vesely, who frequently writes editorials opposing new taxes, says he is looking for a solution to the current economic crisis, and hits upon bicyclists, “known for their community spirit and exalted senses of self.” He goes on to refer to bicyclists as “the most green of our population,” and to detail several multi-use trails and bike lane projects in the works in the Seattle area.
Vesely suggests charging a $25 bicycle license fee, which he calls a “bargain” for all the civic good it could do (he doesn’t go into detail about how much it would cost to initiate and administer such a fee), adding that.
“Bicyclers across the region are known as accommodating and uncomplaining — as long as they get their way. Now is the time for them to show it by contributing to the public trough.”
< ?php if (function_exists('dfrad')) { echo dfrad('ad_225x225'); } ?>
And here’s Vesely’s idea about how to enforce the bike license fee (emphasis mine):
“In the same sense, Critical Mass, the earnest congregation of cyclists who sometimes take over our streets, would be beneficial to law and order. A Critical Mass accumulation of cyclists would allow Seattle police to quickly spot those who have a bike license and those who do not, with appropriate fees and penalties.”
The idea that people who ride bicycles don’t pay their own way on the roads has been shown again and again to have no merit (this paper (PDF) by Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute sums up the case).
Vesely’s editorial purportedly makes a reasonable economic proposal, but clearly it’s not about the economy — the man holds a grudge, whether against a mythical separate class of “bicyclists” who enjoy special rights that aren’t paid for or deserved, or against Critical Mass, or against the young and liberal — it’s hard to say.
Gandhi’s South African example shows that bicycle licensing has been used punitively against certain segments of the population. There’s no reason that couldn’t happen again. When the discussion on bicycle licensing happens, I hope we are able to separate out the prejudices from the economic realities better than Mr. Vesely and the Johannesburg Town Council of 100 years ago.