“This is an opportunity for the bicyclists to start contributing to our roads… everybody needs to contribute to what’s there… if there were not bicycles we wouldn’t need bicycle lanes.”
— Rep. Wayne Krieger
Representative Wayne Krieger (R-Gold Beach) wants everyone who owns a bicycle in the state of Oregon to pay a mandatory, $54 registration fee (and then renew it for another $54 every two years).
He is the chief architect of House Bill 3008, a proposal that was met with a lot of negative responses on this site when I reported on it today.
I spoke to Krieger via telephone from his Salem office on Friday morning to learn more about his reasons for proposing this bill.
Krieger’s main motivation seems to be one of equity. When I asked for his main impetus behind the proposal, he brought up the Vulnerable Roadway Users law that passed last session. That bill created a new class of road user, and stiffened penalties for anyone involved in a crash that seriously injured a vulnerable roadway user (includes people on foot, on bikes, on animals, skateboards, etc…).
When that bill came to his committee, Krieger opposed it on the grounds that it put an unfair burden on motor vehicle operators. Krieger thinks that with all the laws to protect people on bikes and an ever-increasing amount being spent on bike-specific infrastructure, that it’s time bike riders paid their fair share.
“If a small fee discourages something, I would suggest they probably aren’t very ardent to the cause to start with. I think there are very few people who would stop biking because of the fee.”
“This is an opportunity for the bicyclists to start contributing to our roads,” he said. “If you want to have something that everybody is going to use, than everybody needs to contribute to what’s there… if there were not bicycles we wouldn’t need bicycle lanes.”
Krieger also sees this as a way to improve bikeway conditions (and therefore bike safety) in Oregon. Like he has done in committee testimony, on the phone Friday he brought up people riding on the coast near his home in Gold Beach. “They are riding on the edge of the fogline,” he said, “with their butt and elbow into the traffic lane even when they have a bike lane to ride in. They do that because the bike lane isn’t swept. If there was a bit more money in the pot, maybe ODOT could sweep it more often.”
Krieger said bikes are long overdue in having to help pay for the infrastructure they use:
“Talk about a time when you need some revenue for transportation…bikes have used the roads in this state forever and have never contributed a penny. The only people that pay into the system are those people who buy motor vehicle licenses and registration fees.”
When I brought up the fact that bikes cause little to no damage to our transportation system relative to motor vehicles, he disagreed, saying, “I don’t think it’s a legitimate argument simply because the majority of the bike lanes are adjacent to the highways so if we made our highways wider, with more engineering, that drove up the cost for bikes.” His point was that the engineering and planning costs to include bikeways into highways was considerable enough that it needs to be recouped somehow.
“We’ve put millions and million into bike lanes,” he said. And then, repeating his opinion that it’s a matter of equity, he added, “The people that get that service provided for them, they need to contribute…these people are sort of sitting on the sidelines.”
I shared with Rep. Krieger that some people are concerned that his bill might discourage someone from biking. He dismissed that notion:
“If a small fee discourages something, I would suggest they probably aren’t very ardent to the cause to start with. I think there are very few people who would stop biking because of the fee.”
Krieger — a 28-year veteran of the State Police — said he’s “not into it myself” when I asked if he rides, but he did say that it’s “a good alternative way of transportation.” Throughout our conversation, any talk of riding would quickly turn to how people on bikes are the ones contributing to unsafe conditions on Oregon’s roadways. “They create quite a hazard sometimes,” he said at one point when he mentioned recreational riders.
Earlier in our conversation, Krieger made a generalization about people who ride, and found yet another way to flip the usual car/bike victim dichotomy:
“If a person is operating a bike and they are the one that causes an accident, do they have insurance to cover your costs and medical expenses? Not all of those people have any type of insurance at all.”
It’s not clear to me what a bill about a mandatory bike registration fee has to do with having insurance, but it is clear that Krieger sees this bill as a way to keep better tabs on Oregonians who run afoul of traffic laws:
“If you see somebody operating a bike and you see a license on it and they break a law, now you have something to write down. Here in Salem a lot of people are tired of how folks blatantly break laws on their bikes… and I’m not talking about kids, I’m talking about adults. If they have a sticker than you know who it is and you have some way to track them down.”
What about the bill’s fiscal impact to the state? Aren’t you concerned that it will cost more to administer than it would actually bring in?
“Whenever you have a program that’s a start-up program, your first few years are break-even years and then later on the registration fee will be more than enough to cover the program.”
How do you think bike advocacy group will respond to this?
“I had a meeting recently with the guy that’s does the lobbying for the BTA [Karl Rohde]. We had a pretty good talk. He did not seem to think it was totally unreasonable. He wanted to know more about it.” [The BTA has not taken a position on this yet, but Karl Rohde has said that “historically they’ve opposed measures like this,” and that, “we are opposed to anything that discourages cycling.”]
Do you think you’ll find enough support from colleagues to pass this?
“Many people have expressed interest in this bill but they are reluctant to support it because they don’t want to look like the bad guy. It’s a new concept, people resist change, but many people I’m talking to about it — even guys that ride and say they’d be happy to contribute — nod their head and say ‘yes, that sounds like a good idea’.”
But, he conceded, “Maybe a time of economic crisis isn’t the best time to pass this. Maybe we’ll bring it back [to try again next session].”
— You can read the full text of HB 3008 here.
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.
I live in Washington, but bike down to Oregon. What would this mean for me? Would I get pulled over by enforcers who might think I was a local, or do I get a free pass while other people have to pay for this. Either way, it doesn’t seem fair for everyone.
Washington DC disbanded their forced bike registration program last year because it was too expensive to administer. I don’t think they were asking for such an outrageous amount of money though. I own several bikes worth less than 54 dollars. I can only imagine what Krieger would say if I suggested he pay an amount equal to the value of his car for registration every 2 years.
bjorn
So I can buy a hybrid vehicle and get a $1500 tax credit from the state. With a $54/2 year registration fee, it takes 55 years for the state to break even on that, at a 0% interest rate. (At a 2% interest rate or higher, they will never break even. The state pays about 6% interest on their bond right now.) So any argument about “fairness” here is meaningless, it seems more likely that this guy just doesn’t like bicycles.
For the record, the guy only won by 6000 votes, and a little bit of money for the opposition might make him lose next term. Rick Goche is his opponent. And look, here is his website:
http://www.gocheforrepresentative.com/
(Keep in mind that contributions up to $50/year are eligible to for a dollar for dollar tax credit on your taxes.)
I’m still in shock that a republican holds an elected office in Oregon. 🙂 The interview above he comes across as a tad vindictive towards cyclists. I don’t see something like this bill standing a chance in an era where all state governments are struggling to fund the programs already on the books. The start up alone for this bill would just add to an already overly burdened budget.
If it’s about everyone contributing their fair share to use the roads, then why should I as both a biker and driver have to pay double just because I like to vary my mode of transportation?
If the registration bill were to pass I think Krieger fully expects bikers to dodge registration, thereby enabling him and others like him to further classify bikers as an non-law abiding group.
Politicians are supposed to help all people and accept differences of opinion, but this just screams of a vengeful attitude. I am extremely disappointed with Krieger’s stance and his completely backward ill-conceived ideas.
I have to say this blows my mind.
i just read the full bill and it is more stringent than car registration. this is not about supporting roads and byways this is a crusade against bikes.
I am surprised that it was not noted that most bicyclists in the state already pay for roads and bike lanes in the form of taxes (property,state and federal), and registrations of motor vehicle’s
many cyclists do carry insurance in as much as you can in the form of auto insurance.
having ridden the coast for years i can also tell you that odot drives those roads all the time a broom would work to keep the bike lane clear. but the worst of it is that his conversation is pure BS top to bottom.
1>the state has and does get subsidies to build bike lanes
2> the highways have been getting widened to allow larger and larger trucks on the road diminishing the formerly wide aprons that the high way had at one time.
3> its a good bet that the folks that where riding the fog line where touring and most likely from out of state.
4> it costs nothing to have that apron if the highway didn’t have it the repair bill would be astronomical.
5> what this bill would actually allow is the right of the police to stop and harass bicyclists on the road ways. in some of the poorest counties of the state.
I suspect that this is part of something bigger
like homeland security. Like i said i am from the coast and specifically the south coast, the home land security furver is very high at this time because it is a mode of funding.
for the most part you don’t see oregon bikes this far down unless it is the few locals who ride.
I also suspect that those representatives that are interested in this bill are all from failing counties and this dude has tried selling it as a money maker.
Jonathan have you talked to the reps from the surrounding counties? I am certain this bill has not been shown to the public in the south coast.
thanks Matt that is just what i needed to hear.
Rick is a friend of mine and I now know what ears to speak to and better yet a couple heads to knock.
Krieger’s wilfully overlooking every last federal and state funds-derrived subsidy that goes towards making automobile operation as affordable as it is, and the day he agrees to refund everyone not directly reaping the benefits of this setup is the day he ought to be taken seriously. Until then, he can agree to share public infrastructure like an affable unit of society or shut his hypocritical and lie-stricken mouth.
Also:
We had a pretty good talk. He did not seem to think it was totally unreasonable. He wanted to know more about it.” [The BTA has not taken a position on this yet, but Karl Rohde has said that “historically they’ve opposed measures like this,” and that, “we are opposed to anything that discourages cycling.”]
Portland residents, there’s your wake up call. Please contact the BTA and let them know you disagree with and will not stand for this, and that there’s no room for them to waffle on this – that anything less than stalwart opposition on this is unacceptable and will seriously damage how seriously you choose to take them. A bunch of you fund them, so take ’em to task and make ’em do the work (again).
This is my favorite part:
“This is an opportunity for the bicyclists to start contributing to our roads,” he said. “If you want to have something that everybody is going to use, than everybody needs to contribute to what’s there… if there were not bicycles we wouldn’t need bicycle lanes.”
Sorry to pop your bubble Mr. Krieger, but many of us DO contribute to the roads in this state. I have 3 vehicles (daily driver, other car and a restoration project) so they all get registered. One of them is driven frequently, thereby contributing by paying for gas…thanks gas tax. I pay state and federal taxes, both of which tend to flow into the coffers that feed road construction. Not to mention the insurance I’m required to have even though I only drive 4-5 times a month (the wife is the driver i my family). These things alone more than make up the paltry $54 that you want me to pay for each bike I want to register. It’s madness.
Plain and simple, you, Mr. Krieger, have a thing against bicyclists. I’m sorry if we take up space on you precious roads and that your tax dollars are unfairly used to create safe cycling infrastructure. If you have an ulterior motive (homeland security as suggested above or figuring a way to wrangle more money out of an already tight state budget) why not be honest about it?
Just let the idea go. It’s another bloated bureaucracy that will add to the problems our state is already in. Believe me, you have far more important matters to be dealing with other than registering bicycles.
Jonathan, you are far too kind. This Krieger man is dumber than a block of wood.
His goofy ideas about legislation should be met with ridicule rather than polite questioning.
My wife and I have 9 bikes between us. That would be $486 every two years. The fine for not registering is $25. A simple regression analysis shows that we would have to be fined 19.44 times to equal the cost of registration, a statistical improbability. I would just pay the fine since only 2/3rds of the registration fee goes into the new fund.
The license, is 1.5 inches by 2.5 inches and is a sticker placed on the bike; it won’t be easy to see. Therefore, police won’t make it a high priority.
In the crazy “when pigs fly” scenario occurs and this thing gets passed without reducing the registration fee, nobody will bother enforcing it. It’s unenforceable on the tourists on 101 since they are not required to register so police will just ignore it.
Fun law. Retarded sponsor. Don’t retired state patrol officers have anything better to do?
I would be less opposed to this if the fees being collected were appropriate to the size of the vehicle and the strain it puts on other budgets.
The bike registration in itself is not an awful idea. It does raise problems noted by others in the first post, however – what about custom bikes with no serial numbers, or in the case of some “tall bikes” *several* serial numbers?
Is it considered tampering with a serial to have your bike painted, or powder coated? They certainly eradicate the numbers.
His bill simply has too many logistical problems.
It’s a shame legislators don’t use google before proposing something. Every six months this seems to come up again like it’s some bold new idea.
Start here: http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf
Road wear is low, health benefits are up, property owners tend to pay more for local roads than is collected locally through gasoline taxes. It’s really not worth making the arguments, they’re on the internet already.
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2008/05/rewarding-cyclists.html
This does sound vindictive because it doesn’t appear to be thought through much, at the least, definitely under researched.
I was hoping someone could remind me again why the Republican party is in shambles. Thanks Rep. Krieger for clearing up that “mystery.”
ha i needed a good laugh. thanks jonathan!
I’m not the biggest defender of the BTA (they’d better nut up on the CRC soon, or they lose my membership), but I have a feeling that Rep. Krieger’s recollection of his conversation with Karl Rohde may have been colored by this guy’s own blend of self-delusion, or Rohde might have been humoring the guy a little, so as not to trigger another “episode.” I fully support hiring the handicapped, but do we have to elect them, too?
Does somebody need to point out to this fool that bike registration does not equate to insurance.
Furthermore, insurance companies don’t even sell bicycling insurance in this country!
This guy is an idiot.
Drivers don’t “pay for the road”, and they don’t own it. The taxes and whatnot do not add up to the huge cost of maintaining the transportation system. I think it’s somewhere around 60% in direct costs coming from gas taxes and fees. In other words, every driver is subsidized by bike riders and pedestrians. And what about all the other costs involved with driving- police, ambulance, air quality, global warming. Do I get credit for filtering Mr Kriegers auto exhaust with my lungs?
If that foolish politician wants to create a sense of equity here, perhaps he should raise our car registration fees, and gas taxes.
NIK #9: Really? You’re going to call out the BTA over a quote from some total crackpot? I’m sure Karl tries to be polite and make nice with these people because he has to work with them, but I’d take that quote with about an ocean’s worth of salt.
I’ll wait for an official position before I call for any heads.
Really people? You can’t even pay $26 a year to be part of the roadways? You won’t wear a helmet, more of you are riding the streets at night with no lights. You scare the crap out of me and others more and more with the aggressive riding – people like myself who’ve always been bike supporters and welcome new bike lanes and road improvements for bikes are really getting turned off by all the antics.
We want you on the road – quit busting our chops!
I love hearing a republican talk about how “everyone needs to pay their share” because it seems like the polar opposite of what he’d say about any planned income tax increase.
Sounds like the guy really hates touring bikes going through Gold Beach and wants to financially punish people that ride, especially those that might roll a stop sign when no one is around.
Also, his safety issue is insane. Has he ever seen a bike license? They’re usually about 2″ by 3″. From the seat of your car, if you saw a bike go through a red light and you wanted to report them, good luck trying to read their teeny plate and making out the numbers.
“If there was a bit more money in the pot, ***MAYBE*** ODOT could sweep it more often”
So he justifies the fee by saying we’ll get better service but doesn’t commit the money to providing the service.
We MIGHT see the bike lanes swept!!!
And bikes riding legally are creating hazardous conditions on Oregon roads?
I would have liked if you had asked how he could justify a $54 fee for a bicycle when a motorcycle only pays $30.
Can someone tell me how big this license is going to be where someone involved in a situation is going to be able to see it?
What about all those bikes being ridden by people under 18. They don’t have to register. How will they handle the registration when those riders do turn 18? Will the bike stores have to collect that information for every bike sale, including birth date.
What about existing bikes are we required to go in immediately to register or will it be part of your car registration?
What about out of state riders, will we have them buy temporary licenses at the welcome centers when they cross the border? Will there be a booth on the 205 bike path so those from the ‘couve can chip in?
I guess this might slow down the number of people moving to Oregon from out of state. It should be fun at the DMV watching the newbies when they are asked to pony up the serial number for all the bikes in the house.
How about selling a bike or donating it, do we have to go down to the DMV and transfer ownership? I know I have donated bikes to good causes, but I certainly don’t know who ended up with it. I don’t want to take responsibility for their bad riding habits because the bike is still registered in my name.
Will I be issued ownership papers like I have for my car?
If I buy my bike on a finance plan, am I considered the owner or is the bike shop or finance company considered the owner? Do they get the documents?
Overall Kreiger wants to treat bikes like cars. Well he better close up all the loopholes because I want to be treated exactly like I own a car. I want my registration papers, I want my ownership papers, I want to be reminded to cough up the cash every two years. I think there should also be tests to earn the right to ride a bike and a new class added to the current license structure to indicate that I can ride a bike on Oregon roads.
This proposal comes across as vindictive. Oregon gains so much from being viewed as the most bike friendly state that people come here and spend their tourist dollars for just that reason. This type of law will gain huge publicity in the cycling press, and down grade this state as a go to location for cyclists from around the world.
Has Kreiger thought about that impact, he hates to see those cyclist on the coast riding in danger. What he isn’t seeing is the trail of money they are leaving behind them, supporting Oregon businesses.
I’ll pony up the cash to help support bike infrastructure when they come up with a plan that is properly thought out.
hhmmm, Republicans supporting new taxes? I thought only liberal Democrats did that. Whatever happened to the party with the mantra of ‘no new taxes?’ Or is this just a tax on a group of people you don’t like, so it’s OK then?
First, it would figure that a non-bicyclist would propose such a bill. Mr. Krieger apparently has nothing better to do than throw a wrench in our spokes I guess.
I’d bet a few pints of Dead Man’s Ale that after the third one we’d begin to hear about all the two wheeled arsholes that screw up our roadways.
Bottom line is that yes, there is cost in engineering/construction to improve the roads for bikes, but we give back by not polluting the environment and clogging-up traffic. Duh. And keep in mind that most bicyclists are drivers too who pay for auto license, gas taxes, etc.
Next he’ll introduce a bill that will cause everyone on foot to wear a license on their back to crack down on jaywalkers.
This bill is nonsense. Stand-up friends and fight this one.
If a Democrat had come up with this proposal you would think it was a good idea.
Wow! Trolling is getting common around here!
I’m thinking about all the citizens that are living on the edge of poverty. They can’t afford a car, car maintenance, insurance, or have otherwise been denied a driver license due to other problems with the law. This idea of licensing bikes simply puts more low income people at the mercy of law enforcement that generally has very little mercy for the poor. An old bicycle may be the only way many people can get around in a city built for cars.
Mostly the police will use this bicycle registration to harass otherwise non threatening people in an arbitrary way. This is kind of like arresting homeless people for loitering when they have nowhere to go. If the law requires that you to have a registration, that registration can be revoked.
Wayne Krieger has the typical Republican idea that this country needs more laws, more prisons, and more people to fill them.
olh –
such broad sweepings generalizations and accusations on a pro bike forum is going to do nothing but make you a target which will not further your arguemnet. (unless that’s what your trying to do, then you are right on message.)
I don’t want to hear how all bicyclists are creating anarchy, sell me on this fee. I would love to hear an opposing argument that makes sense. How will this fee cover the cost of the registration program and enforcement of registration? How will this help or change any of the issues you are citing? Is some of this supposed to go into biker education? Road improvement? Better lighting on roads?
I have heard a suggestion of incurring a one time fee at the time of a new bike purchase. I am much more open to this. No reoccurring fees, no needed bi annual registration and change of ownership notification.
Tell me where the money goes, how it helps, and how it makes up for the added aggravation of yet one more item that needs to be tracked by an over worked bureaucracy. I also want to know why owning a bicycle that reduces pollution, reduces congestion, creates less wear and tear on the road, has no impact on parking and is healthy (therefore creating less pressure on our already over-taxed health care system), should require me to pay additional fees?
As Jonathan has very eloquently stated on many occasions, this is not an us and them. Not a motorists vs. bicyclists. I would hazard to guess that most of the people use both forms of transportation.
I’m still calling this a trial balloon. It’s being floated on the outskirts of the state, to avoid sinking a local career.
I say we should shoot this thing down in flames. If it’s there to collect a response for future reference, let’s give them a response they’ll remember.
The amount is just ridiculous. I can see perhaps a point-of-sale tax, a tax proportional to the use/damage of roadways, or a nominal registration fee, but $27 annually is a bit rich. It makes outlaws of the poor, and it inconveniences everyone else. Many people don’t spend that kind of money annually on bicycle maintenance and repairs.
Meanwhile, I think it’s a relative bargain the $180 I pay to California every two years for my heavy, gas guzzling German sedan.
Will: #28 –
Representation does seem to be missing in the bill.
Also, management, administration, oversight, financing, and qualifications for the record keeping is dismissed outright.
It’s packed full of logical fallacies and errors.
And so forth. I think it’ll be an easy fight, but not one we should fight easily.
Greetings,
The argument about all the cost to add bikelanes isn’t quite accurate. When designing roads by most standards, including Oregon DOT, you include a “clear zone” or recovery area for an errant vehicle. That generally takes form as a paved shoulder usually 5-10 feet wide depending on the classification and speed of the road. Motorized vehicles also need a few feet of shy distance to a curb, so if a travel lane is curb tight – you usually provide an extra 2 feet (about 1/3 or so of a bike lane). So, if the roadway is designed in accordance with nationally accepted practice, it likely will have a paved shoulder which, through the addition of an 8″ white stripe, some pavement marking legends, or signs, becomes a bikelane. So the true extra cost may really only be 1/2 of the 8″ stripe (edge lines are usually 4″) and the pavement marking legend and signs. Probably not a bank busting sum of money.
Oh – also, while we’re thinking about taxing those sustainable, non-polluting, healthy forms for transportation, might I offer up my new proposal of a shoe registration fee. We spend millions, if not billions, of dollars installing sidewalk on projects – and those people never pay their way. You should register your shoes. The registration would be based on the weight of the shoe, the coefficient of friction of the sole and the number of steps you walk, based on an “Oregon Only” built instep counter that transmit your steps and location wirelessly (oh we have to build that part) to a central bank of computers housed at a top secret location. You would be assessed your shoe tax at the local coffee shop. Ok a bit crazy, but, seems funny to tax (and $54 is a bit of cash per bike) a mode that we’re really trying to encourage. I keep waiting for my tax break and flat repair incentives for risking my life and riding my bike every day. The great thing, though, is that we can all have the conversation. I love democracy.
Ride safe all.
Rep Kriger says:
“if there were not bicycles we wouldn’t need bicycle lanes.”
I say:
if we got rid of cars we wouldn’t need bicycle lanes.
Regardless of the fact that to say cyclists aren’t paying for roads is a myth… it seems like motor vehicle operators should pay for the travel lanes, since they use those, and the bike lanes, since otherwise they’d be paying our medical bills, and the sidewalks, since those are also only necessary when you have multi-ton machines flying along at high speeds.
I echo #19 by Drew. It is cars that are not paying their fair share (public health, national security, air quality, GHG, etc.). We should be taxing gasoline.
How does he think anyone would be able to read the number on a wayward rider’s registration sticker? The next step may be to require riders to wear bibs with their registration numbers printed on them in huge letters. Ooops! I shouldn’t give him any ideas.
My responses, in no particular order:
1. This law does not take into account the staggering number of homeless people who reply on bicycles as their ONLY means of transportation. (Don’t believe me? Go ride along the waterfront tonight and count how many people are camping out with bikes and trailers of all sorts.) What’s the plan for enforcing such a punitive law among the homeless and/or other deeply impoverished populations in Portland, Eugene and elsewhere?
2. The law is unenforceable in our present economy. We already don’t have enough police officers to go after violent criminals; where will the money come from to administer and enforce bicycle licensure?
3. What about those who own more than one bike? What about dedicated racing bicycles? What about bike trailers for kids? Will they be licensed too? What about those who use electric carts to get around? Are they next? Please. This proposal is not only ridiculous, it’s clearly prejudicial and really means to send the message: “Get real, grow up and get a car. If you don’t/won’t have a car, you don’t belong and are not worthy of consideration by society or protection under the law.”
I certainly hope the BTA quashes this idea as soon as possible. (I’m still waiting for a real response from them on the CRC mess.) It’s discriminatory and punitive. And if by some miracle it passes into law, it’s a law I will absolutely, willfully break.
I own a bike, and, even though I think $54 is ridiculous, we should have to pay a little for registration. I also own a car and I have to pay to renew the tags on my car, so why not my bike as well? As far as those of you people out there that have more than 2 bikes(unless you have a family), why don’t you get rid of them? You wouldn’t have 10 cars would you? Come on, lets get real. Like I said, $54 is stupid, but like $20 or $25 is fair. Costco charges $50 a year, and I along with a ton of other people pay that. So get your heads out of the sand and lets help the community instead of bitching about having to pay a fee. Nothing is free in this world people, come on. So ask that the fee be lower instead of nonexistent, help out, and make Portland a better place.
Ok, I have been skimming the recent posts so I apologize if I’m repeating already established points.
First of all, with a $30 bi-annual registration fee for motorcycles and $54 proposed for bicycles, this is blatantly punitive for bicycles.
Rep. Krieger’s base is Gold Beach. I’m guessing there are a number of his constituents there who rent bicycles to tourists. As the owners of the rental bicycles, those renters would be required to register their entire fleet. Maybe not so bad a few bikes at a time as they’re purchased, but quite a slam all at once.
I’m guessing that around Gold Beach many tourists ride on the highway shoulders. From my reading of the bill, if those shoulders are not designated as bike lanes then they aren’t entitled to any attention from the fund this bill would create, so the bill wouldn’t create the claimed benefit. If those highway shoulders are designated as bike lanes, then they couldn’t be used for parking by those seeking beach access. Hmm…
Gold Beach is served by the Curry County Reporter should any of you wish to inform Rep. Krieger’s constituents of how he is keeping their best interests at heart.
Does anybody know how Rep. Krieger voted on SB 108 – the Safe Passing Law?
Found it! It looks like in the 2007 Legislative Session Rep. Krieger was in the 38-21 minority in opposing SB 108, the Safe Passing Law, in its final form after the conference committee.
While I can’t say I agree with much Rep Kreiger has to say, I do hear what he is saying: There is a percieved inequity that somehow bicycles are ‘favored children’ of the ‘government’. I do find it inconsistant that a Republican is encouraging a tax, especially in such turbulent times, but he is playing to his base. I doubt this will go anywhere, as I am sure there is significant opposition already, not only from urban area reps,but I any Representative from an area that relies on tourism as an important part of their local economy. ( meaning the whole flipping State of Oregon).
For many, cycling doesn’t seem realistic. Rural cyclists encounter great distances and poor facilities. In the Portland Metro area, there has been great effort made to make cycling possible. Its not that somebody in Curry County can’t ride, but it requires more effort and perhaps I doubt there is the community support we get here in PDX ( should there be a Bandon chapter of the BTA, or Shift or Pump, or such? )
Yet rural or urban, cycling represents to me the idea of self sufficiency. Taxing that impulse seems, dare I say.. unpatriotic?
I’m curious as to what committee this would go to? Straight to Ways and Means on Transportation and Workforce Development or will it go to a substantive committee first?
This guy is a RINO: republican in name only.
More like a republocrat: the worst of both worlds.
AND for the posters here: if you did not vote, or never do vote, you have no dog in the fight. Register AND vote, THAT is what gets their attention!
OMG, what a douchebag. I don’t even know where to start, every single one of his talking points is utter squablewalish.
oops, that was me, not shantastic
For the record, the BTA has historically opposed these concepts for many of the reasons cited above. However, we are willing to have conversations with people with whom we may disagree about issues that we may not share the same point of view. These conversations are respectful and contribute to a better understanding on all sides. While we may disagree with Rep. Krieger on this issue, there may be issues that we agree on and can work together collaboratively. It is not productive to demonize someone for their opinions, especially when it is one that is shared by many people. I personally have had this issue brought up in conversations with people around the state.
This bill will likely be referred to the House Transportation Committee with a subsequent referral to Revenue and/or Ways and Means. The BTA and our supporters will have an opportunity to express our position at the hearings as well as in individual meetings with Legislators I will have while working in Salem.
Do we get to ride 12 abreast across the CRC that BTA is so thoughtfully trying to provide?
But, he concedes, “Maybe a time of economic crisis isn’t the best time to pass this. Maybe we’ll bring it back [to try again next session].”
They must be so proud of his brilliant insight down in Gold Beach.