Esplanade closure begins February 1st

A conversation with Rep. Krieger about his bike registration bill

Posted by on March 6th, 2009 at 10:48 pm

“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…).

Story continues below


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.

Please support BikePortland.

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Also, if you comment frequently, please consider holding your thoughts so that others can step forward. Thank you — Jonathan

  • morgman March 6, 2009 at 11:08 pm

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Bjorn March 6, 2009 at 11:22 pm

    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.


    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Matthew Denton March 6, 2009 at 11:25 pm

    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:

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Matthew Denton March 6, 2009 at 11:31 pm

    (Keep in mind that contributions up to $50/year are eligible to for a dollar for dollar tax credit on your taxes.)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Bike Jax March 6, 2009 at 11:41 pm

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • snolly March 6, 2009 at 11:56 pm

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • 2MT March 7, 2009 at 12:01 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • 2MT March 7, 2009 at 12:06 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • N.I.K. March 7, 2009 at 12:13 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • N.I.K. March 7, 2009 at 12:19 am


    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).

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Tom March 7, 2009 at 12:20 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • encephalopath March 7, 2009 at 12:41 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Brad March 7, 2009 at 12:41 am

    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?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jay R. March 7, 2009 at 12:41 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Bryan McLellan March 7, 2009 at 12:53 am

    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:

    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.

    This does sound vindictive because it doesn’t appear to be thought through much, at the least, definitely under researched.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • nuovorecord March 7, 2009 at 1:00 am

    I was hoping someone could remind me again why the Republican party is in shambles. Thanks Rep. Krieger for clearing up that “mystery.”

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • toddistic March 7, 2009 at 1:49 am

    ha i needed a good laugh. thanks jonathan!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • peejay March 7, 2009 at 3:08 am

    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?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • TwoWheels March 7, 2009 at 4:10 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Drew March 7, 2009 at 4:27 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kronda March 7, 2009 at 5:28 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • olh March 7, 2009 at 6:38 am

    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!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Matt Haughey March 7, 2009 at 7:43 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Don't get it March 7, 2009 at 7:49 am

    “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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • David Anderson March 7, 2009 at 8:00 am

    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?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • nativerider March 7, 2009 at 8:09 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Afro Biker March 7, 2009 at 8:10 am

    If a Democrat had come up with this proposal you would think it was a good idea.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • peejay March 7, 2009 at 8:21 am

    Wow! Trolling is getting common around here!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mohjho March 7, 2009 at 8:26 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Will March 7, 2009 at 8:31 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John March 7, 2009 at 8:42 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Brent March 7, 2009 at 8:46 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John March 7, 2009 at 8:49 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • RacerJoe March 7, 2009 at 8:53 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • RacerJoe March 7, 2009 at 9:05 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Peter W March 7, 2009 at 9:17 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dan March 7, 2009 at 9:42 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Cruizer March 7, 2009 at 9:45 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • beth h March 7, 2009 at 10:04 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Craig March 7, 2009 at 10:05 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • buglas March 7, 2009 at 10:09 am

    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?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • buglas March 7, 2009 at 10:22 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe Adamski March 7, 2009 at 10:34 am

    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?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Allison March 7, 2009 at 10:50 am

    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?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • rwl1776 March 7, 2009 at 11:09 am

    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!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • shantastic, agent trouble March 7, 2009 at 11:10 am

    OMG, what a douchebag. I don’t even know where to start, every single one of his talking points is utter squablewalish.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • gabriel amadeus March 7, 2009 at 11:11 am

    oops, that was me, not shantastic

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Karl Rohde, BTA March 7, 2009 at 11:17 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jim Lee March 7, 2009 at 11:22 am

    Do we get to ride 12 abreast across the CRC that BTA is so thoughtfully trying to provide?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Donna March 7, 2009 at 11:32 am

    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.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Donna March 7, 2009 at 11:38 am

    Hey Matthew Denton – thank you so much for posting that link to Rep. Krieger’s opponent (posts #3 and #4). I forgot about the state tax credit for political donations. Better mail that check while I still have a job.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Pojaco March 7, 2009 at 11:46 am

    I am not sure what bothers me most about this, but I think it might be that Krieger seems to constantly refer to cyclists as “those people” and “these people” rather than speaking about whether this bill makes sense as a simple matter of law.

    It gives me the impression that he is more concerned with taxing “those people” that he constantly sees fly past him while he waits in traffic because of a grudge against people on two wheels, rather than a desire to do his job well and serve the city. He doesn’t explain his bill well at all, instead sounding like a kid with no ice cream who is jealous of another kid who does have ice cream.

    “…bikes have used the roads in this state forever and have never contributed a penny.” C’mon Rep. Krieger, our tax is having to deal with drivers that consider cyclists “…quite a hazard sometimes…”, you should try it.

    “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.” You’re probably right. Rather, thousands of people who know it’s an idiotic fee will simply fail to comply, and you’ll have made scofflaws of them. Thanks! Why would cyclists who break the law when they ride choose to add a license number to their bike so they can be identified? Wouldn’t they rather break one more law by not registering?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dave March 7, 2009 at 11:57 am

    I still just can’t believe how stupid this law is. I agree, he’s probably not a horrific person or anything, I just think he has no idea what he’s talking about.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • buglas March 7, 2009 at 12:00 pm

    I have posted the following to the Curry County Reporter Opinion page. They are a weekly publication with a 400 word limit on submissions. If anyone wishes to send their own letter, they can know what has already been said and perhaps direct their own 400 words to some other points of interest to those Rep. Krieger was elected to represent.

    Oregon District 1 Representative Wayne Krieger is the chief architect and one of four sponsors of House Bill 3008 which is in committee in the current legislative session. This bill would establish a $54 registration fee for bicycles, renewable every two years. This is the same fee paid for automobiles.
    In a March 6, 2009 interview with, Krieger declared, “This is an opportunity for the bicyclists to start contributing to our roads.” Krieger is ignoring the fact that except for gasoline tax and motor vehicle registration, bicyclists pay the same taxes and fees as motorists. Since the gasoline tax is only a small component of highway funds, bicyclists are already paying for roads but are not contributing to crowding or wear and tear on them.
    I am an avid bicyclist in Corvallis and I oppose this bill for many reasons that probably aren’t very meaningful in Curry County. However, I offer you three thoughts:
    This bill is punitive to bicycles, as the fee for motorcycles is only $30 for the same period.
    Bicycle owners would be required to pay the registration fee, so anybody who rents bikes to the tourist trade would need to register their entire fleet. If you have twenty bikes, that’s over $1000 every two years.
    Money raised from bicycle registration would be designated for maintenance of bikeways. Rep. Krieger describes this bill as a way to pay for tasks like road sweeping so cyclists would not need to ride on the fog line because of debris on the road shoulder. From my reading of the bill, highway shoulders in Curry County would need to be designated as bike lanes in order to benefit from this. If they are designated as bike lanes, they would no longer be available for roadside parking for beach access or for any other purpose than as traffic lanes.
    Does Rep. Krieger have Curry County’s interests in mind?

    Doug Smart
    Corvallis, OR

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • are March 7, 2009 at 12:24 pm

    I am not aware that any roads were widened to create more space for bike lanes. If they were, it was probably a poor decision. I have zero use for striped bike lanes anyway. Usually they are a mere distraction, often they are a hindrance (example: NW 9th and Lovejoy). If they create a fund with my money to build infrastructure I would rather not have, what have we accomplished? A little bit of “share the road” signage here and there, and the occasional “sharrow” are all that has ever been needed. If we are going to get this kind of backlash, that is just one more argument against all this infrastructure.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • 2MT March 7, 2009 at 12:42 pm

    To those folks who keep saying bikes dont pay a share.

    it has been posted, graphed, studied folded and spindled. here and in the government, all over the internet, in magazines and on hand outs where the money comes from to support our transportation infrastructure; in not only this country but this state.
    if you have a job you are paying for the roads. if you drive a car you are paying for the roads.

    while you are looking that up you might also be interested to look up the pre general fund numbers and see how well ODOT was funded at one time.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Chad March 7, 2009 at 12:57 pm

    I used to work with a person who belongs to very promenant Republican family in Oregon and he made no secret of the Republican, dare I say hatred, for bicycles.

    It would be irresponsible of me to paint all Oregon Republican with the same anti-bike brush, but it’s important to know that some of these people want us off the road completely and entirely.

    The simple reasons for the bike registration bill and others like it are, in the clearest terms, are revenge put forth by a powerless state party aimed towards a group of people (bicyclist) they see as being all left leaning liberals.

    This bill won’t pass (not that we should ignore it), nor will any other bills that resemble it. These bills are but forth to put a burr in our saddle by an angry group of out of power law makers that have little or no control over anything bigger than deciding whether or not a sidewalk gets built in thier district.

    The Oregon Republican Party is breathing it’s last few breaths, unfortunatley those last few breaths will be filled with words that some of us would rather not hear.

    At least they are only words.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jami March 7, 2009 at 1:06 pm

    What a mouthful of bullshit it was for him to say bikes are a great form of transportation when he so clearly wants them off the road.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jami March 7, 2009 at 1:16 pm

    Initial swearing rant aside, this is great reporting.

    I’m left wondering the consequences if you don’t pay your $54 Republican cyclist punishment tax. Do they impound your bicycle?

    People who support bike registration want to criminalize cycling at a time when our climate is getting all messed up by cars. Geniuses all.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • sarah March 7, 2009 at 1:37 pm

    Do not have a job so I can not afford bus fare. Do not have a job and if this bill does pass, will not be able to afford to ride my bike either. Wondering how I am going to get around.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spencer Boomhower March 7, 2009 at 1:42 pm

    Bikes are the world’s more efficient form of transportation:

    Bikes are vastly more efficient than cars, they have an impact on roads rougly comparable to that of a pedestrian hauling around a 30 lb backpack. while at the same time providing a means of transportation that is, speed-wise, on par with cars, especially within more densly populated areas like Portland.

    Bikes are three times more efficient than walking, if that article is to be believed.

    Bikes are just… better. That seems self-righteous to say, and being as I like getting around by bike it’s obviously a little self-interested. But even if I didn’t ride, I think I’d see the sense of it. In the video game of modern transport, bikes take high score.

    As such, bikes and bike infrastructure should, if anything, be subsidised. Not that I’m a fan of hand-outs, but don’t governments subsidize things that benefit the communities they represent? Bikes do that.

    At the very least, governments should refrain from going out of their way to rein in, tax excessively, or otherwise harass cycling.

    Wasting breath responding to obviously nonsensical points of obvious political posturing detracts from my bike-riding efficiency.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kevin March 7, 2009 at 2:34 pm

    Maybe there should be a shoe tax as well. Since they build sidewalks and walking paths in public parks… Sheer stupidity. I’d move out of Oregon if bicycle ownership was taxed.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rixtir March 7, 2009 at 2:56 pm

    From the Oregon Legislative Glossary of Terms:

    “Gut and Stuff”– A slang term which refers to removing the text of a measure and inserting entirely new language which, while it may change the nature of the bill completely, still falls under the measure’s “relating-to” clause.

    Gut and Stuff this bill with pro-bike legislation, and we won’t be seeing Sen. Krieger introducing any more bike-related legislation.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • KimJSCP March 7, 2009 at 3:18 pm

    Wow – I too have only skimmed all of the comments and do not know where to start. But, I am pretty much blown away by this guy. I am a bike riding and loving Republican who really knew nothing about Krieger and I guess all I now now is that he is, at best, phenomenally uniformed and more likely just a plain **deleted** — please don’t insult anyone on this site, thanks. — Jonathan.

    This bill needs to disappear, as does the architect of this bill. For those voters in his area, please remember this come election time.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • buglas March 7, 2009 at 3:42 pm

    I have never felt like an activist before but this hits close to home, so I’m going to violate my normal cap of three posts on a particular topic.

    We can post here and rant all day and it won’t change a thing. If you object to this bill, do something! There are at least five chances to get it spiked:
    1) Weaken its sponsorship. If you’re in the district of any of the four sponsors, respectfully voice your dissatisfaction to them. If you live elsewhere, they have no reason to listen to you but you can post a letter to their local newspaper raising concerns that would matter to that community. If their constituents write in, the sponsors have reason to listen.
    2) If your Representative is on the Transportation Committee, write to them and perhaps it will stop there.
    3) If this thing gets out of committee, then it goes to the House at large and your own Representative has a stake. That would be the time to write to them.
    4) If this clears the House, then it goes to the Senate. Senators represent all of us statewide, so write to all of them.
    5) Finally, should this pass both houses, write to the Governor.

    Take it in phases, don’t jump ahead. There is no point in pestering somebody who can’t do anything about this.

    Be polite and respectful. Flaming just discredits you.

    I have started down this path, right here from my keyboard, with no more effort than it takes to post here.

    And if you support this bill, these steps will work for you too. Write to your people and tell them they have an uphill climb on their hands. The process is meant to work for everybody.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Pete March 7, 2009 at 4:23 pm

    Craig (#39): I think there’s a point you’re missing here. The administrative costs of collecting a $20 fee on an $800 bicycle would outweigh the revenue it would generate. If the premise of this bill was to efficiency generate revenue that would actually be used to improve bicycling safety and infrastructure I think more people would “get real” and stand behind it.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jordan March 7, 2009 at 4:30 pm

    Bike riders already pay more than their share. The automobile registration fee and gas tax that Representative Krieger pays only covers a small fraction of the real cost of driving his car. The rest is made up through property and income taxes, increased health care costs, decreased security, etc. which are paid by all of us.

    There are some links at the bottom of this article:

    US gasoline is subsidized to the tune of $6 to $12 for every gallon – quite an unpleasant thought as you are riding along a busy road, sucking down those subsidized exhaust fumes.

    Yes, Representative Krieger, we should all pay our fare share, but you missed the mark. It’s time to stop subsidizing the automobile.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Coyote March 7, 2009 at 5:00 pm

    Did Krieger speak with Karl Rhodes or Karl Rove? If the BTA does not come low, hard, and fast against this one, I’m done! They have an agenda that is something other than pro-bike. The fact that the BTA is even hemming and hawing at all on this bill disgusts me.

    Self-propelled transportation in a public right-of-way should never ever require a permit.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • New taxes in a bad economy? March 7, 2009 at 5:35 pm

    I can’t believe a Republican is actually proposing a new tax with a commensurate bureaucracy!

    Seems to me to be a tax aimed at the tiny number of people who only get around on bikes, and don’t own cars. Where’s the tax on people who only take public transportation? Next this guy will propose a registration fee for your shoes. Sidewalks aren’t free you know! Walkers should pay their fair share! If anyone seriously believed in contribution on par with use, trucking companies would pay for 90% of roads, since trucks put 90% of the wear and tear on them. Plenty of casual cyclists like me never even leave our neighborhoods, and never see or use an actual bike lane.

    Cyclists take cars off the road so roads don’t have to be expanded, they reduce pollution, they improve their health and lessen their burden on the healthcare system, and they trade their time and manpower for monetary savings.

    When I was growing up, my town had a voluntary bike registration program. For about $10, you got a numbered sticker for you bike, and the police would know who your bike belonged to if it was ever recovered. Maybe the city could have a voluntary program like that- something that would actually benefit cyclists.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Evan March 7, 2009 at 5:58 pm

    I saw someone whine about cyclists who don’t wear helmets. I wear a helmet, because I am worried about getting hit by a car…not because I am afraid of crashing on my own. It sucks that I am forced to take responsibility for bad drivers, rather than have a transportation system that allows me to get around safely without a car.

    This guy, and his supporters, are out of touch.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • tonyt
    tonyt March 7, 2009 at 7:54 pm

    About cyclists who might be discouraged by the fee, he say’s that they “aren’t very ardent to the cause”

    This isn’t about a cause, nor should it be about weeding ANYONE out who isn’t “ardent enough.” This is about to access to public space that happens to be dominated motor vehicles.

    I own a car, like a lot of cyclists. And we drive a lot less than we would if we didn’t ride. The wear and tear on the road that we DON’T cause with our cars, more than makes up for the cost of bike lanes.

    Not to mention that much of the money for roads come from the more general tax base. My measly license fees hardly pay for what my car requires. We are all paying for the roads already.

    Really, what about a pedestrian fee? Lots of expensive sidewalks out there.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • 007 March 7, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    Leave it to Republicans (and a harebrained Democrat) to blame those who least deserve it and steal their money from them at the same time. said the following:

    David Guettler, the owner of River City Bicycles, said he didn’t think the bill was a bad idea.

    “I don’t know too many cyclists that would not sign up for $50 every two years to increase the level of safety,” he said.

    MORON. I don’t shop at his ridiculous store and now I know I was right not to.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Hart March 7, 2009 at 8:07 pm

    I can’t wait to hear, “You are being fined for riding an unregistered bicycle.”

    How totally absurd.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Pete March 7, 2009 at 8:17 pm

    From the State of Minnesota DOT web site (

    “Registration is no longer required or available through a state program in Minnesota. The Minneapolis City Council made the registry optional and as a result, participation in fell off. The program was run by the Dept. of Public Safety. The administrative costs were more than the revenue generated, so the state abandoned the program. After administrative costs were paid for, excess revenue was to be spent on infrastructure.”

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Barney March 7, 2009 at 8:42 pm

    I just read an LA Times article about the tax breaks coming in 2009. I naively hoped to see something for bicycle commuters in the section about “environmentalists”. Apparently those tax credits are just for energy efficient appliances, insulation, and other home renovations.

    This misguided bill is indicative of America’s completely unambitious effort to reduce our carbon footprint and salvage our deteriorating world. Bike registration is not an investment into cycling and a greener earth, it is as backwards as giving even bigger tax credits to new car buyers in 2009. Let’s cut the crap and give people some real incentives to drive less. Bike registration is far from it.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kevin Putnam March 7, 2009 at 9:03 pm

    As bad as this proposed legislation would be for adults, it would be far worse for children. This might mean learning to ride a bike would no longer be a common right of passage for youngsters nor a source of welcome freedom for adolescents. I can think of no rider more “ardent” than a child.

    Also using the Representatives logic, pedestrians would need to register in a similar fashion as without pedestrians sidewalks would not need to be constructed alongside roadways.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John March 7, 2009 at 9:46 pm

    He says he’d like to use the potential revenue to sweep bike lanes in his own backyard.

    Can we ask him how he justifies using revenue which would be almost entirely generated outside of his home town to sweep bike lanes generally used for tourism specifically within his home town?

    And how will this benefit the commuters generating this revenue? Why should we support this? Why should anyone see this as other than skimming fees from the municipal centers to be used for his own special interests?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Pete March 7, 2009 at 10:13 pm

    Here is the letter I’ve written to my representative (feel free to copy it and send it along to your own, found at (

    Rep. Van Orman,

    I’m writing to express my concern over House bill 3008. Rep. Krieger has stated that this bill was borne of his belief that bicyclists “don’t pay their fair share” for roadway use, and the purpose of this bill is to raise funds specifically for bicycle infrastructure. I would submit that the administrative costs of establishing and maintaining enforcement of a bicycle licensing system would outweigh the revenue it would generate. Though many cities, counties, and universities have optional bicycle registration for the purpose of making it easier for law enforcement to return stolen property, some states have abandoned their bicycle registration programs due to administrative costs. For example, here is a quote from the Minnesota Department of Transportation web site (

    “Registration is no longer required or available through a state program in Minnesota… The administrative costs were more than the revenue generated, so the state abandoned the program. After administrative costs were paid for, excess revenue was to be spent on infrastructure.”

    Further, this bill is poorly written and incomplete. There is no language governing enforcement, leaving open questions such as: do officers have the right to ticket the rider of an unregistered bicycle if not cited for another violation? How does an Oregon citizen stopped while riding a borrowed bicycle owned by a friend from another state prove it is not theirs? How does a police officer discern an unregistered Oregonian rider within a group of visiting riders; would they have the right to interrupt a group ride to check all the riders’ registrations? Section 803.305 section 2 exempts bicycles owned by individuals under 17 years old; how do officers prove I’m riding a bike that I failed to register and not that owned by (for instance) my 16-year-old son, who rides the same size bike?

    This bill is flawed in both its premise and implementation and I urge you to vote against it. I’m a cyclist who owns two registered cars and a home and pays Oregon income tax; I’m offended by Rep. Krieger’s comments alleging that I’m not carrying my weight because I additionally choose an alternate form of transportation. I choose to ride a bicycle for fitness, enjoyment, and impact on both the environment and economy. I’ve purchased bicycles locally, purchased locally-built bicycles, and purchased parts locally to build my own bicycle. In times of economic difficulty I should not be penalized financially by choosing a less expensive form of transportation which actually saves wear and tear on Oregon roadways.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Todd March 7, 2009 at 10:33 pm

    I for one, if this bill were to pass, will be the first cyclist using the entire lane. You heard (read) what Krieger said. “It’s about paying our fair share” and “It’s about equity.” By requiring us to pay for the road, then yes, that does truly “entitle” me to the use of the road. For all those motorists that yell at me on the back country roads during my training rides, i can legitimately shout back, “as a matter of fact, yes, i do own this road.”
    Good riding all and good night. 🙂

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Efren March 7, 2009 at 10:49 pm

    I already pay taxes for road improvement, transportation, and schools…I bike commute and I don’t even have kids. But I am happy to help my community.
    I think the road fee for bikes is bogus and the inventor of this idea should get his head out of his ass and take a good look around… there should be more bikes on the road and less cars and a fee like that might discourage some people to just drive!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Scoutpj March 7, 2009 at 11:48 pm

    I am outraged by this proposal to tax every bicycle that one person owns at the same fee as a car registration every two years. That would cost me over $200.00 every two years and as a driver and a user of Tri-met and a homeowner I feel that I already contribute to the tax base that funds our roadways.
    As a bicyclists will I be assured that bicycle lanes will be free of broken glass, nails and road debris on a regular basis? Will our bike lanes be smooth and free of cracks and potholes? AS it is every bike I own I have to purchase kevlar tires and tube liners to lessen the number of flat tires I get from riding in the bike line in the St. Johns area.
    I think the proosal is ludicrous and I will not support or vote for anyone who wants to pass this bill.
    Why don’t we tax handicapped people because we have to provide sidewalks with handicap access. Tax blind people because we have to provide signal lights that make noises that the blind people can hear. Why don’t we tax the scooter chairs that the elderly and compromised people ride in as they are motorized too.
    While we’re at it we could tax skate board riders too.
    Why not tax walkers too. Or tax everyone who owns a pair of tennis shoes or walking shoes. They utilize sidewalks and we provide walkways for walkers to use. Oh yea I forgot to add runners.
    Why not tax everyone as they step outside their door every morning no matter how they transport themselves.
    Where does taxation end?
    I feel empathy towards every bicyclist who cannot afford to drive or is homeless and uses a bicycle to try to get around town. How are they supposed to pay for registering their bicycles.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Pat March 7, 2009 at 11:49 pm

    Hmmm. If we raised auto registration fees and the gas tax sufficient to pay for building and maintaining roads, I’ll bet there’d be plenty of room for bikes- and lots more people riding them!

    ‘Cept then, it *would* be inequitable for cyclists to use the roads. But we don’t have our tax system set up that way, do we? We pay for all kinds of things out of generalized taxes that not everyone uses. We can use them if we need/want to, but not everyone chooses to. Some get more benefit out of them than others. Most of us benefit indirectly.

    I have no doubt that Mr. Krieger’s choice of an autocentric life gets him more benefits than any cyclist receives. And every cyclist he sees is in reality subsidizing his choice, both monetarily and environmentally.

    That may be a bitter pill to swallow, but there it is. Time to take off the rose colored glasses and swallow, Mr. Krieger.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] Reader » Blog Archive » A conversation with Rep. Krieger about his bike registration bil… 39 minutes ago – Comment – […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] Reader » Blog Archive » A conversation with Rep. Krieger about his bike registration bil… 39 minutes ago – Comment – […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • K'Tesh March 8, 2009 at 12:47 am

    I read somewhere a proposal for a dollar a pound…

    I could get behind that… Lets see those 2000+ lb behemoths pay for their fair share for tearing up the road.

    Mr. Krieger you should remember we’re in an epidemic of obesity right now. We’re pouring our money down the drain to foreign nations that don’t have our best interests in mind, and trashing the environment to boot… Outside of their manufacture, bikes have an positive effect all all those issues, and more.

    Get Real!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anonymous March 8, 2009 at 12:51 am

    Bent Rider
    We as cyclists should be very receptive of Rep Krieger’s proposal with one ammendment. The tax should be based on weight. If a 30lb bike is $27 per year then a 2500 lb sedan would be about $2,250 per year. If he can get that past the legilature it would fund roads, mass transit and bikes in a generous manner.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • br0q March 8, 2009 at 1:42 am

    this shouldn’t worry anyone, as it will be a reality.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Gabe Leavitt March 8, 2009 at 1:50 am

    This is crazy, and should be opposed vocally.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • br0q March 8, 2009 at 2:20 am

    *NEVER* be reality..

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dan Hawk March 8, 2009 at 7:33 am

    I’m pretty happy to see all the dialogue here. I too am a driver part time. My initial thought as soon as I started reading the article was:
    ” Wait, don’t I already pay for roads by paying taxes?” I don’t believe that my little auto registration fees and gas tax are the primary ( or even a significant) source of funding for road maintenance.

    This whole thing just doesn’t make any sense even using basic common sense. Bicycles are cleaner, less expensive, better for health, better for the environment, require less parking, less congestive on roads and I could go on…

    I like the comment about owning a hybrid. You actaully get a tax credit for owning one of those things even though it wears down the road just like a normal car takes up just as much space in traffic and still burns gas, polluting the environment. I’m feeling like choosing to commute by bike should be a tax creditable action too.

    This is the direct opposite of incentive and feels like, ” Hmmm, what can we do to make choosing to not drive even harder?”


    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • anna March 8, 2009 at 8:53 am

    I’m with Efren (# 80). I want my money back from the schools where I have no children in attendence.

    I’m hoping that people will really start to adjust their paradigm to one of the scarcities of government. We will need to engage in morecommunity building which is decentralized, and based upon direct citizen involvement over the next few years.

    For this reason, I scoff at any government attempt to redirect their buyers’ remorse upon us. Did we, the people, decide to overextend our resources (such as Or National Guard being sent to Iraq) at the state or federal level so that now government revenue coffers are stretched like the very last bit of butter scraped painfully over toast?

    If we want true, meaningful investment in our community to sustain its health while we continue to recover from this depression, we must take matters into our own hands and bypass the hobbling economic pipelines….

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • anna March 8, 2009 at 9:07 am

    by the way, I was hit by a cab driver last year while jogging IN THE CROSSWALK and he wouldn’t even get out of the car until the cop got there.

    I WAS lucky to have seven (that’s right, 7) witnesses (including the cab passenger) who offered their contact information for the investigation.

    I was also backed by the vulnerable users law when dealing with the insurance company.

    How does a pedestrian have unfair leverage over a driver who hits them? MY assailant (that’s right, I went there) only had to sit in his car and ignore my repeated requests even though the witnesses preventing him from leaving in his cab.

    Well I suppose it’s to be expected from someone who was socialized in a society which actually stole the land it is taxing.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul M March 8, 2009 at 9:09 am

    Coyote, I’d like to direct you to Buglas’ post in 65. He is correct about what the best course of action is in challenging this bill.

    In addition to listening to their own constituents, legislators listen to lobbyists that they have a good relationship with. Lobbyists don’t establish good relationships with legislators by being jerks and refusing to listen to legislators’ ideas directly related to the association they represent.

    In many cases, legislators may even be more likely to listen to a lobbyist than their own individual constituents. This happens when the legislator wants to establish a good working relationship with a lobbyist for an association that represents a significant number of his/her constituents and he knows that the association has the political and financial power to influence their chances of getting elected in the future, which is directly aided by membership dues.

    Therefore, rather than canceling your membership, the best possible thing you could do is continue to be a member of the BTA, and encourage others to become members as well. Especially people who live in a district represented by legislators like the sponsors of this stupid, anti-bike legislation. I’m not a member of the BTA yet, but I’m going to be joining this week as a result of reading this article and many of the other articles regarding bicycle infrastructure appropriations I’ve read here in the past couple of weeks.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Evan Ross March 8, 2009 at 10:38 am

    I’m not sure how this might affect cyclists who own several bikes. I own thirty bikes that I use to facilitate a local bicycle sightseeing and rental business. ( If I had to pay to register all of my bikes every year, this would put me out of business. I do support a state registration for bikes in the event of theft.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Karl March 8, 2009 at 10:48 am

    So this comes up what? every 5 years?
    Unless bike licensing becomes mandatory (which is a whole other issue) I can’t see any way that such a program can be enforced and maintained and any level.
    This might be somewhat reasonable if everyone rode just one bike and … no I take that back, it’s not reasonable at any level. I own 4 bikes and unemployed (oh, and I own a car too) so there is no way I would pay for such an unreasonable tax.
    Back when this came up last, I was sorta okay with a $10 yearly fee if it were able to keep the bike bashers mouths shut, but it didn’t fly then and I doubt if it would have had the results I would have hoped… bike hostility would still be prevalent.
    We’re part of the solution, not the problem.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jess March 8, 2009 at 11:22 am

    It’s amazing that this legislator thinks that people who ride bikes don’t have a viable economic impact that’s equal to what’s going into the infrastructure. Perhaps someone should have him read the recent Oregon Business Magazine cover article on how bikes create a $150 million industry for the city and state?? That’s quite a return on an investment.

    His argument is very short-sided and it doesn’t seem like he’s taken a good look at what the bike industry really does for Portland.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dennis Bley March 8, 2009 at 11:35 am

    This seems like ruse. When the most outlandish bills come up, often it is an attempt to draw attention away from the real objective. Not knowing the issues outside of Portland, the only one that comes to mind is CRC. Is he trying to draw venomous responses he can use to show how unreasonable cyclists are, and deny funding for bike projects? Seems to me he is the fall guy for a larger agenda.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Karl March 8, 2009 at 11:45 am

    Good point Dennis. This would smell of a flame bait attempt to segue from the real issue at hand.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • buzz March 8, 2009 at 11:54 am

    Here is my 2.5 cents:

    I apologize if someone has already covered this, but don’t people who have renter’s or home owner’s insurance already carry insurance for bike accidents in which the bicycle was at fault? I know this is the case in Montana and that was directly out of my Father’s mouth who is an insurance agent. If it is the case, Krieger’s argument doesn’t fly unless he researches it first. Besides, most of my insurance on my car covers medical expenses occurred if I am at fault. Short of running someone off the road, how much medical expenses is a driver going to occur if there is a collision?

    I, like so many other bicyclist, have a car and pay insurance and registration for that. I also just built a bicycle. I drove to buy the frame and fork, drove to buy a set of wheels, and drive it to the bike shop to have them do the gear setup. The amount of travel and gas tax I paid for that, will pay for the “damage” my 25 mm tires will do the road.

    A small sticker on a bicycle is not going to be visible to a car that wants to report a cyclist running a red light.

    The fee for riding a bike that is not licensed is going to be $25 according to this bill. Is a cop in Portland even going to enforce this? I mean, the administrative part alone for giving a guy a ticket is going to cost more than that. Maybe cops in Gold Beach have nothing better to do, but cops in bigger cities do.

    Another question. I read this bill and is sounds like it is only going to cover bikes that ride on Oregon highways. If I read this right, I am not too worried. I need to stay off MLK/Grand, Sandy, Lombard, 82nd, and Powell basically. But, am I going to get busted when I cross MLK going Eastside/Westside?

    I will be writing my legislators and asking them to not pass this bill and I suggest we all do the same. Just remember, please be respectful.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Coyote March 8, 2009 at 12:43 pm

    Paul M.(#93,)in general I would agree, if this bill was somewhere near reasonable. It is not. This is Limbaugh-like proposal that serves no purpose other than to create controversy and division. I guess I can see how an ex-cop wants to have more control of people in public spaces. Unfortunately, Krieger fails to recognize public spaces are the domain of citizens, and the police operate there at our discretion. “…of the people, for the people…”

    If your agenda is to promote cycling, which is supposed to be BTA’s mandate, this bill is outrageous. The majority of people who ride bicycles do so causally. They pump up the tires in June and ride around they ride down to the park. If you are asking Joe Shmo to pay $54 to register his $99 Walmart cruiser he bought 10 years ago, it ain’t gonna happen. He will drive. The causal bike rider is tomorrow’s cyclist, and the BTA should see this.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • 007 March 8, 2009 at 1:06 pm

    Bicycles don’t require Gas Oil or Petroleum (GOP) so we are not contributing to the GOP’s favorite child – the gas and oil industry.

    If you own a car and have auto insurance, you are insured on your bike also.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • beth h March 8, 2009 at 1:49 pm

    @ 007 (#72):

    It would be helpful to quote Mr. Guettler in greater context. While it’s true that he remarked he knew of few folks who wouldn’t sign up to pay such a fee, he also worried about how this would affect “those whose bicycles are their only means of transportation” — i.e., the working poor and/or unemployed for whom this fee would be an undue hardship.

    I agree that perhaps Mr. Guettler doesn’t have the whole picture, but he clearly shows he gets more of it than your incomplete quote suggests.

    As a co-owner in a bike shop myself, I can say it’s highly unlikely my shop would support this bill. It’s oppressive, selectively discriminatory, and places an unfair tax burden on all bike-riders.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe March 8, 2009 at 2:25 pm

    bad idea! thats what i think it is.
    what happens if you ride more that one bike and get caught? 25 bucks a pop..

    Lame! I already get 0 respect on the road
    with all these cars taking up space, forcing themselfs on me!

    Enjoy the sun today 🙂

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] $54 per bicycle every 2 years to register their bikes, same as cars and $24 more than motorcycles. A conversation with Rep. Krieger about his bike registration bill I could see this with a concurrent raise in motor vehicle registration to make the costs for […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Karl March 8, 2009 at 3:45 pm

    So pedestrians require road improvements as well. Hmmm, maybe a registration is needed there too? But of course it would ONLY go to pedestrian related improvements.

    Now, my advice to those who die
    Declare the pennies on your eyes.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Karl Rohde, BTA March 8, 2009 at 4:22 pm

    It is important to recognize that this is not a partisan issue. Sen. Atkinson, a Republican from Central Point has been a stalwart supporter of bicycling issues. As have several Republicans that recently cosponsored bills to create a new dedicated fund for non-motorized transportation corridors.

    We disagree with Rep. Krieger on this Bill, however, in my conversation with him, he indicated that he could support the BTA’s Vehicular Homicide Bill. Like it or not, this is how the process works.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jim Lee March 8, 2009 at 4:34 pm

    Don’t like it, Karl.

    Make it work some other way.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe March 8, 2009 at 4:49 pm

    start charging people who drive too much.. LOL ( out with my little girls today )
    its a war zone teaching kids about auto traffic. daddy why dont they stop.. well kids welcome to the autojungle.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Karl Rohde, BTA March 8, 2009 at 6:02 pm

    I wish I had that kind of power, Jim.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe Adamski March 8, 2009 at 6:08 pm

    I regard some of the flack the BTA (and Karl Rohde) is taking as naive, and indicitive of a circular firing squad.

    BTAs arena is policy and legislative. Every other group covers exists for other reasons.

    BTA has learned over the years to be effective and goal driven on STATEWIDE bike issues. One of the important character traits as a lobbyist is to work within the system, to advocate for that change the organization desires.

    I have never worked the Legislature. However, I do know that there are traditions, process and law that must be satisified to effect change in the law. Professionals such as BTA lobbyists know what they need to do. At the same time, supporting their efforts should not include name calling and insinuation. I expect our rep from Curry County will stir the pot a little. I know the BTA will skillfully manuever to gain what advantage can be had by the attention being gotten about this silly idea and channel it into building a stronger coalition for cycling and cyclists in Oregon.

    Give it a rest already. Attack Rep Krieger if you must. Call attention to the stupidity of his proposal. Don’t beat up your allies in the process. As a matter of fact, call up the BTA and ask if you might be of assistance in this challenge, instead of beating up the home team.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe March 8, 2009 at 6:31 pm

    wait i just found out why they want to tax, seems the bike lanes are filled with crap, ahhh.. auto traffic litters in the bike lane,, tonight i just found this out in Wilsonville or have known it for along time.. 4 plastic creamers in the bike lane.. yep someone pulled over stopped and threw them out in the bike lane.. *thanks *

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • N.I.K. March 8, 2009 at 7:00 pm

    Kronda #21: Please go back and read my post. I called for no heads, but rather urged Portland residents to phone up BTA and say, “I don’t support the bill and you shouldn’t either.” They’re an advocacy group meant to serve a constituency, and they need to hear from that constituency in order to represent it. Sitting back and saying, “well, they’ll *probably* do what’s best, a lot of the constituency agree with point of view X, surely they’ll represent that?” isn’t good enough. If you’re not vocal, they stand less a chance of serving your best interests.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Zaphod March 8, 2009 at 7:04 pm

    This law shows a frustrating lack of understanding and respect for a significant part of his constituency. Given elections can come down to a point, I know how I’ll be voting. I hope that those in the middle of the political spectrum see his law for what it is… a disingenuous attempt to marginalize and penalize the cyclist as road user.

    I’m not impressed and I don’t see any benefit this law creates for anyone. The only thing it does is creates a channel with which to harass and profile those on two wheels.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Tom March 8, 2009 at 7:04 pm

    I am not longer a resident of Oregon, but if I was I would send my $54 to Representative Wayne Krieger’s opponent in the next election. In fact, I may do that anyway.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • N.I.K. March 8, 2009 at 7:18 pm

    And that goes double for those of you with applicable representatives, who aren’t already explcitly concerned with policy and legislature regarding bicycles in the first place. It doesn’t have to be standoffish – state your point of view, reinforce it with facts, and bid them good day. They can’t do their jobs properly without you.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • I.e March 8, 2009 at 7:30 pm

    This is ludicrous at best. How about an alternate plan…Spend some effort in ensuring that ALL cars on the road are registered and INSURED!. Stop letting these individuals get off with a ticket and then disappear into the sunset. How about seizing the cars until the fines and insurance are paid up? If that were accomplished, I’m sure you could take the funds to actually do something constructive for our roads.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SkidMark March 8, 2009 at 8:11 pm

    I can’t believe I’m suggesting this: CRITICAL MASS to protest this bill, showing people what it would look like if we “paid our share” and therefore had every right to the WHOLE ROAD.

    For $54 a bike, we should not be relegated to 4′ behind a white line.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • hanmade March 8, 2009 at 8:14 pm

    I think Krieger’s just smoked a little too much of that crack stuff and his brain’s been addled.
    (gee, I should change my name to ‘Late Responder’ since that is what I usually do….)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Steven J March 8, 2009 at 11:24 pm

    I think the system for getting a drivers license needs change. a $54 dollar endorsement for the privilege of using a cell phone in a car. I’d like to tax the SUV & truck drivers that travel single in an 8 passenger vans.bout 100 bucks. Monster diesel with a soccer mom/dad driving? 125.00
    Think their gas should cost more too, based on it’s carbon footprint, To subsidize the truck & train industries, ensuring basic staples of living are protected for all.

    If any joker can introduce a bill..I say lets get busy!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Emett Stasiuk March 9, 2009 at 4:36 am

    I’m just floored by this idea!!! Here I am, along with countless others, trying to advocate biking… and along comes this bill. Arrggg.

    I think bikers registration should be about -$500; that is, we should get about $500 a year back from our overpayment through high income taxes and to compensate our lowered rights to the roads (we’re denied the freeways!!! Which are often the smoothest, fastest, and least hill-y routes in the cities, not to mention the most expensive…) I’ve actually been refining this idea for some months already on my website Unpollute, and it’s open for discussion on there, and now this is in the news…

    Ahh, but here is a silver lining: it’s kinda cool to me to see that the “opposite” idea to mine is so clearly a bad idea! I’ve written it out as a bill, and I’d be very pleased if more advocates would check it out and lend a little support. I’m happy to be the next “any joker,” that’s better than what last road-rager yelled at me! 🙂

    Bryan McLellan: thanks for those links in your comment above! Proof is good.

    And to Jonathan Maus: thanks for this post and your work interviewing Rep. Krieger…

    -Emett Stasiuk

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Reinhold March 9, 2009 at 6:20 am

    “Bicycles don’t require Gas Oil or Petroleum (GOP)”

    Uhm, yes they do.

    Plastic is made from oil.

    Producing Steel, Aluminum, and Carbon Fibre, all consume petroleum products. Paints can contain petroleum products.

    Bicycles and their parts and accessories are shipped to retail, consuming petroleum. Often times consuming packaging which is also made from petroleum products.

    Chain lubricants and bearing grease most often are petroleum based (even vegetable based oils require farms which consume oil).

    Even locally hand-made bicycles will use petroleum based products…

    Bicycles are not made out of magical organic hemp and bamboo grown by unicorns (yet).

    However, bicycles do not consume petroleum at the same rate or ongoing cycle as do automobiles.

    But make no mistake, we are an oil based society. It is virtually impossible to escape that at this point. Even the computer I am typing this on is full of oil based materials…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Tom March 9, 2009 at 7:06 am

    I agree that the Rep, Krieger is anti-Bike. Seems to go against his party platform to propose MORE goverment.

    Since the Oregon Coast is a destination Cycling vacation spot, I wonder what the economic impact would be if his county had better bike lanes, and a safe reputation.

    I am all for a Fee Per bike at time of purchase, if it funds safe cycling and bike registration. However I can not see how enough product can be sold to support it. Fred Meyer and Toys R Us would be the largest collectors of this fee.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • a.O March 9, 2009 at 7:18 am

    Rep. Krieger must have many embarrassed constituents because it is obvious from his comments about bicyclists being or causing roadway hazards that he is unfamiliar with Oregon law. It’s really sad that we have a legislator who doesn’t even know the law while he’s trying to write new ones…and even more sad is that he spent nearly 30 years enforcing that same law. This man is a disgrace to democracy and to the people of Oregon.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • a March 9, 2009 at 8:00 am

    it starts with an untenable business plan and continues with no actual benefits

    i’m writing my representatives this week on this one

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Streetsblog » Today’s Headlines March 9, 2009 at 8:32 am

    […] Oregon Rep Proposes Bicycle Registration Bill (BikePortland) […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Minister March 9, 2009 at 9:27 am

    #35. Great point about taxing shoes!
    This guy is a relic from the 50’s era autocentric viewpoint. One day people like him will die off and so will their screwed up values. It’s ridiculous to tax people for something that brings about alot of good. Isn’t there someone from Gold Beach who could defeat this loser next election?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • El Biciclero March 9, 2009 at 9:28 am

    I would like to know the rationale behind why motorcycle registration is less than auto registration. If we knew the determining factor, e.g., weight, vehicle cost, insurance stats for damage caused in wrecks, damage to roadway, pollution amounts–whatever it is, then we could extrapolate a more appropriate reg fee for bikes, which, if we were “fair” would probably come out so close to $0.00 that it would not be worth discussing.

    I can understand the need for accountability–motorists wanting some way to “get the license number of that scofflaw cyclist”–but this law doesn’t go one inch toward any of that. The proposed sticker would not be readable unless the cyclist was stopped and the bike closely examined. Which is exactly what police might be able to do on a whim–“If I could just see your papers please, comrade…”.

    The problem is that bikes are not compatible with the display of any kind of theft-resistant, readable-at-a-distance license number. Some cyclists choose to use that to their advantage and do things most of us wouldn’t do simply because they are pretty sure they can get away with it.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Earlbz March 9, 2009 at 10:13 am

    I agree that bicyclists should pay their fair share of road costs. Vehicle (bicycles, motorcycles, cars and trucks) registration fees should be restructured to reflect the proportional road and environmental damage caused. I suggest $1 per pound for the first 1000lbs, $2 per lb for the next 1000 lbs, and $5 per lb for any vehicle over 2000 lbs. Electric ( not hybrid) vehicles should pay the $1000 rate of $1 per lb.

    That seems fair to me – how about you?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Earlbz March 9, 2009 at 10:13 am

    I agree that bicyclists should pay their fair share of road costs. Vehicle (bicycles, motorcycles, cars and trucks) registration fees should be restructured to reflect the proportional road and environmental damage caused. I suggest $1 per pound for the first 1000lbs, $2 per lb for the next 1000 lbs, and $5 per lb for any vehicle over 2000 lbs. Electric ( not hybrid) vehicles should pay the $1000 rate of $1 per lb.

    That seems fair to me – how about you?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • buzz March 9, 2009 at 10:54 am

    I just received an email from my representative (Michael Dembrow, NE Portland) and he opposes it and does not think it will make it out of committee.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] a full discussion of the bill and an interview with Krieger, see’s A conversation with Rep. Krieger about his bike registration bill. Home Products Dealers About Us Contact Us Call us! 805 576 […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anonymous March 9, 2009 at 11:13 am

    >> That seems fair to me – how about you?
    How about this…
    So impose the $27py registration fee, and to encourage folks to actually ride their bikes instead of their car, offer tax credits to offset the tax, er, registration fee.
    So for every x number of miles ridden you receive $x back on the fee either payable at the end of the year or can be applied at the next registration period. Isn’t the point of riding a bike to remove wear and tear on the roadways while improving the health of the participants and reducing health care costs and (insert all other benefits to the economy, environment, etc. here)?
    This is a shortsighted step backwards by an ignorant minority. Just stop it.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Offroad March 9, 2009 at 11:18 am

    Does a unicyclist pay half price?
    If I bolt a third wheel on my bicycle, is it now an exempt tricycle. Maybe the next craze will be Monster Bikes with 14″ wheels.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Offroad March 9, 2009 at 12:37 pm

    earlbz #129
    Either your math is different than mine, or your out of your mind
    Example 1
    5000lb car, first 1000 lbs =$1000. That’s what you said $1 per pound for the first 1000 lbs. 2nd 1000lbs = $2000 and the last 3000lbs @ $5 lb = $15000. Total registration cost….$18000

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kt March 9, 2009 at 2:23 pm


    Read the text of the bill.


    So, IF by some unholy chain of circumstances this stupid thing passes: pay $54 for ONE sticker.

    When you want to ride one of your other bikes, pay $1 to transfer that sticker.

    Keep copies of your paperwork with you, so you can prove you’re jumping through the hoops if you get pulled over.

    Also: the text of the bill specifically exempts cyclists younger than 17– so PLEASE stop with the whole “what about the children!” line. They don’t have to comply.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul Adkins March 9, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    Would paying the same vehicle registration amount grant us equal space on the roads, where the lane widths for cars and bikes would be equal?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kt March 9, 2009 at 2:24 pm


    It sounds like the good Rep from Gold Beach doesn’t understand where the funding for infrastructure comes from.

    News flash!!! If you own a house, rent an apartment, own and drive a car, have a job, own a business– YOU ALREADY PAY FOR THE ROADS.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • are March 9, 2009 at 3:58 pm

    as I may have mentioned earlier in this thread, I could do without a lot of the infrastructure Kreiger pretends this fee would pay for. it seems to me that a striped lane exists primarily for the benefit of the overtaking motorist. what we need is education and enforcement. increase fines and court costs on motorists who screw up, and you will have plenty of money for whatever. jail people who drive on suspended licenses and impound their vehicles, and revoke permanently (as in, forever) the licenses of repeat offenders, DUIs, etc., and you will have fewer cars on the roads for cyclists to contend with. these are worthy objectives for BTA to be pursuing (also outlawing the use of cell phones, etc. while operating a motor vehicle). I am going to assume that Karl was caught off guard if he said anything resembling “we are willing to talk about paying toward infrastructure.”

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Frank James March 9, 2009 at 4:36 pm

    My Dr.Suggested 2 years ago to take up bike rideing that it would be good for my health.Bike rideing saved my life. She also recommended a high fiber diet so i eat a bowl of Raisin Bran every nite.I suggest we send Rep.Wayne Krieger’s proposed bill down south with the Raisin Bran… Frank James

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bikeknight March 9, 2009 at 6:50 pm

    Maybe the loophole in this bill will be to have all your bikes owned by your children or another person’s children. There is nothing in it that says adults can’t ride a child’s bicycle.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Coyote March 9, 2009 at 6:58 pm

    Karl Rhodes, thank you for defining what is not, low, hard, and fast. As a (former) member, the BTA’s message comes through loud and clear.

    Krieger should have been sitting in his office Monday morning wondering what the f*^% hit him. Instead you want to dialog with Satan about is possible. Got it!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rixtir March 9, 2009 at 7:56 pm


    No, it’s not a “sticker” that “transfers” between bikes. If you read the language of the bill, as you advise, you’re required to provide data about the make and model of your bike when you register. Thus, each sticker represents a specific cyclist and bike. The bill also makes it clear that it’s illegal to remove a sticker from a bike.

    Therefore, the transfer fee means that if you sell one bike, and buy another bike, you can pay $1 to transfer your registration to the new bike.

    On the other hand, if you have more than one bike, you will be required to pay $54 for any bike you operate on the road.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Blah Blah Blah March 9, 2009 at 10:19 pm

    I wont pay it. But how about something like the educational motorcycle classes done through PCC. There ARE a lot idiots on the road that need some learnin.

    Plus, I’m not stickin a sticker on any of my bikes. Also, I’m no hippster doofus, but maybe spoke cards for a license.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • 240 Robert March 10, 2009 at 2:58 am

    So, tell me Senator? Are you trying to re-invent the wheel here and make things more complicated or are you just an insane idiot that is looking for a re-election pad for you coffers? Just what I thought.

    May I remind you, that local Law Enforcement Agencies already have some type of Bicycle License program written in their books and anyone could walk into a Police Station and license their bicycle and all. May, I also remind you that owners of bicycles can also have their ODL or OID Numbers engraved on their bikes as well in the event the bicycle is stolen as well.

    Third, may I also remind you that your incredibly stupid in getting a critical mass of cyclists all roughed up to bombard your store on the state capital where you would certainly be out numbered than those in Senate and the House in Salem.

    4th, I’d gladly donate my $54 to me local police or fire department for their much needed equiptment than to some idiot who think he’s still a George Bushwacker clone!

    And 5th, it don’t make any sense at all, your lousy idea of taxing bicyclist $54 bucks a year and every two years after that, therefore seems like a waste of taxpayer money on a bill that your likely not likely to get any support on – like I said, I’d be more than happy to donate my $54 to my local boys in blue and the men and women who risk their lives to save others in the fire department.

    Get another job senator.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kt March 10, 2009 at 9:49 am

    Sorry, Rixter:

    Section 2, (3): ‘License’ means a sticker that can be securely attached to
    a bicycle frame, that prominently displays a unique number and
    that is issued upon registration of the bicycle.

    SECTION 9. { + Bicycle license and registration fees are as
    (1) Initial registration and license fee, $54.
    (2) Registration renewal every two years, $54.
    (3) Transfer of license from one bicycle owned by a person to
    another bicycle owned by the same person, $1.
    (4) Duplicate license, $2.
    (5) Transfer of bicycle ownership from one person to another
    person, $5. + }

    SECTION 10. { + (1) Bicycle licenses shall:
    (a) Be a reflective sticker 1.5 inches by 2.5 inches of a
    design adopted by the Department of Transportation; and
    (b) Have a unique number prominently displayed.
    (2) Upon a transfer of ownership of a bicycle, the license is
    valid for the new owner until the expiration date of the
    registration. + }

    Looks like we’re looking at the same thing from different angles.

    Section 9 clearly states that you can transfer the license (aka STICKER) from one bike you own to another bike you own. Ergo, you don’t need to purchase multiple licenses (aka STICKERS) for your multiple bikes, you merely need to fill out paperwork to transfer the one license (aka sticker) from one bike to another.

    Which is what I’ve been saying.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Vance March 10, 2009 at 10:28 am

    Am I the only one who notices this? Bicycle operators under the age of 18 are free to ride anywhere they want sans license, but an adult must be regulated? Sheesh, what does that say about Krieger’s argument that cyclists are a road-hazard? If kids are fine, in his mind, then we can ratchet up the notion that this is a disingenuous, punitive attack on perceived lifestyle. After-all, providing adults an incentive to ride less, while offering CHILDREN an incentive to ride more, can only negatively impact Krieger’s stated goal of alleviating hazardous road conditions.

    You’all wanna really smack this thing around? Get an 18 and under, “highway”, access ban tacked onto it. Kick this guy’s kids off the streets and see what happens. Oh and, “highway”, is interchangeable with, “Public Right of Way”, in Oregon. Bygone era stuff there. Horse-culture past too. “Highway”, in Oregon used to mean – paved. As in, “higher than the mud”, highway. Has nothing to do with the Jersey notion of the word, out-of-towner folks.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • canuck March 10, 2009 at 11:10 am


    From what I read it’s based on the ownership of the bike. So if the bike is owned by a minor no registration.

    How do they plan to track who owns the bike?

    All my bikes are owned by my 3 year old nephew. He’s letting me borrow them until he grows into them.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rixtir March 10, 2009 at 11:52 am

    Kt, think about what the language is saying:

    License’ means a sticker that can be securely attached to a bicycle frame, that prominently displays a unique number and that is issued upon registration of the bicycle.

    Have you ever seen a bicycle license that can be both securely attached and easily removed (for transfer to other bikes)?

    Think about it– If a sticker can be easily removed, how many times can it be transferred before the adhesive loses its ability to stick to the frame? Suppose I transfer it once a week– that’s 108 transfers in the two year period. Now suppose I transfer it daily. Does it make any sense to you that there’s some sticker that’s capable of being transferred like that without losing its adhesive capability?

    And what prevents somebody from removing the sticker from my bike and sticking it on their bike?

    And if it’s so easily removed, how does this language make any sense:

    “A person commits the offense of altering a bicycle serial number or license if the person willfully removes, destroys, mutilates or otherwise alters the serial number or license of any bicycle.”

    Finally, does it make any sense that a unique number can be assigned to one person, and one bicycle make and model, but can be transferred back and forth between multiple makes and models?

    I’ll grant you that the statute can be read the way you’re interpreting it, but applying common sense, it can’t mean that. If it does mean what you say it means, then it’s even more poorly thought out than was at first apparent.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Vance March 10, 2009 at 12:05 pm

    canuk #147. Hehe. Too funny. I hadn’t thought of that. By the time the language in this thing got cleaned out, there wouldn’t be a bill anymore.

    Well, I only hope this thing dies in congress. I mean really bites it. We don’t need some other chuckle-head trying to make a ballot issue out of this. So many times the liberal Willamette Valley vote trumps the rest of the rural, and quite conservative state. However, this time it looks as though this thing would have voter-legs here in P-Town too. As a ballot measure, this thing would pass in a heartbeat.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SJ March 10, 2009 at 2:16 pm

    Bitter, out of shape republicans.

    His language in the interview is telling.

    I’m sending $54 to dems and the BTA.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ryan Good March 10, 2009 at 2:40 pm

    “Costco charges $50 a year, and I along with a ton of other people pay that.”

    To Craig, number 40: Faulty analogy my friend. The government isn’t (or at least SHOULDN’T be) a business; Costco is.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dianna March 10, 2009 at 2:41 pm

    My road bike has an old California bike license on it, so I just went and looked up what the CA vehicle code has to say about bike licensing fees.

    “(a) For each new bicycle license and registration certificate, the sum shall not exceed four dollars ($4) per year or any portion thereof.”

    It’s pretty awesome that Krieger is proposing to make Oregon’s bicycle infrastructure 1,349% better than California’s.

    …what do you mean that’s not how he calculated this fee?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • n8m March 10, 2009 at 2:58 pm

    Lets start a bill to register our shoes.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Faintly Macabre March 10, 2009 at 9:25 pm

    I’m absolutely incensed, and I don’t even ride that much. Name the time and place to protest this, and I’ll be there with bike bells on.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jeremy Robillard March 10, 2009 at 10:06 pm

    If I have to register my bike, then I expect police and anyone else who works for the state to take bike theft as seriously as any other vehicle theft.

    I expect quick and positive actions for any bike theft the day this is approved.

    Smarten up people. We don’t have the resources to pay for cops to track down bike thieves, and $54 registration fee will not pay for the resources and even if the state had enough money to fund the police, I doubt they would do anything about it.

    I ride my bike everyday to work, and pay taxes out the nose to live in Oregon and own a vehicle that I rarely drive. If this bill is passed, then I expect cyclists to have nonnegotiable rights against any vehicles: I will be parking anywhere, and riding at any speed in whatever lane I feel like and cars can kiss my fender!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kt March 11, 2009 at 9:22 am

    Rixtir, that’s just one of the many problems with this bill.

    They allow for transfer of the license between bikes owned by the same person– does that mean they’ll be issuing another sticker for your second (or third, fourth, tenth) bike? Because in that case, I’m going to transfer the license as soon as I get it and only pay $54 plus $1 for my two years. The stickers are securely attached to my bikes, and I assume with their transfer form they’ll be asking the same questions as on the original form. Why should I pay $54 for my second bike if I don’t have to?

    I think our common senses are different– which makes sense, we’re different people– but we agree this bill isn’t thought out very well at all.

    For instance: how much is it going to cost to create the stickers? How much is it going to cost to administer the program, from salary of the human element, creation and mailing of the forms, mailing of the stickers… you get the point. Since whoever administers it only gets to keep 1/3 of the $54 (that’s $18 for you mathy people), just to pay a minimum wage worker full time for one year, they’d need to register 975 bikes.

    No where in this bill does it say anything about out of state riders– so it looks like my brother in Vancouver gets to “own” my bikes. But how are the police know this?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rixtir March 11, 2009 at 10:06 am

    I agree that what you’re saying is a plausible interpretation of the statute. It may even be what the Senator has in mind. BUT… Suppose the law allowed you to have the same license plate number on every car you own. That would mean one license plate number would be attached to multiple and completely different makes and models. So let’s say you had a vanity plate “Kt,” it would be on your blue chevy, white honda, red ford, green toyota…It would make a complete mess of vehicle registration.

    Is that really what Senator Krieger has in mind for registering bikes?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kt March 11, 2009 at 12:31 pm

    Who knows what he has in mind for registering bikes? 🙂

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Shasta March 11, 2009 at 2:27 pm

    If the state wanted to get serious about saving/making money on road projects, they would ban studded tires.

    The amount of money spent to repair gutted lanes on the highway every 2 years adds up pretty fast.

    Striping bike lanes is a drop in the bucket compared to these costs.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anonymous March 11, 2009 at 3:34 pm

    He can have my bike when he pries it out of my cold dead fingers. This is a joke by a lawmaker that gives politicians a bad name. No one will pay this fee and there aren’t enough cops to enforce it. As a former state patrol officer, he should know better than anyone know self-respecting police officer would waste their time when there are real criminals out there. Puh-thetic

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Suburban March 11, 2009 at 8:20 pm

    I smell golf.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • April March 12, 2009 at 7:52 am

    Don’t most bikers (and other “voulnerable roadway users”) usually also own a car? Or at least many do.
    So wouldn’t you be paying twice to use the same road?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • BB March 12, 2009 at 9:11 am

    I say yes give me my 54 dollars for the right to report every motorist on the road and have the PD go after every case. I have two cameras and I am ready.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anthony SF March 12, 2009 at 7:16 pm

    If bicyclists have to register and pay, does that mean pedestrians do too? If sidewalks and walking paths have to be created for them then they should share the load. I would like to see how that would go over.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Cary W March 15, 2009 at 8:41 pm

    Bike riders…you want all these services, it’s time to step up and pay for them. I agree with this guy. We enjoy wonderful bike lanes in this state. We want bike laws enforced to protect us. Who pays for this, auto drivers? No wonder we appear to be arrogant. Step up and pay for the right to ride. BTW, when you realize the tax man is coming after you, perhaps we will ALL start to protest over excess taxes.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • kevin March 16, 2009 at 7:34 am

    Utterly inane, and I’m not a bicyclist.

    A good rule of thumb when making a law, is don’t make one you can’t or won’t enforce. Are we talking stickers on bicycles? Registration papers bicyclists will need to carry? Little Joey with his training wheels? Or would that be considered 4 wheels and hence double the fee? ;P

    Aside from the cost of the bureaucracy inherent in this registration, you are then also going to take police resources away from protecting citizens to check biclyclist’s registrations? My guess is that would be a pretty small sticker…

    And what? Police then pull over people on bicycles to see of they have the proper documentation? And fine them if they don’t? And if they don’t pay the fine, I guess arrest them? Are we really prepared to do that for the crime of…riding a bicycle? If not, right there, you have a meaningless law. And if you are prepared to do that, the Gestapo called, and they schtick back.

    And lets examine the “benefits.” Krieger wants bicyclists to start paying for use of roads. Great, except, the vast majority of them already do, because they also own cars, for which they pay property taxes. FYI, hitting them for both makes little sense because…wait for it…they kinda can’t use both methods of transportation at the same time. And if bicycle lanes are such a big deal, stop making them. I’ve never seen one in CT, and people ride here just fine.

    And now let’s examine the downside to the community. In discouraging people from riding bicycles, and that is certainly what this will accomplish, you do 2 things.

    The first, is those people inclined to ride to work or wherever as opposed to drive, are reducing fossil fuel emissions, reducing our dependency on foreign oil, etc. Is $54 every 2 years worth that?

    In addition, riding is exercising, exercising makes people more healthy, and healthier people need to see the doctor less, thus creating less of a strain on our already taxed medical resources, and allowing them to spend more time at work, both of which, are good for the economy.

    You may think the above 2 items are not important, as they have a minimal effect individually, but given a significant chunk of people, over the course of 2 years, they add up to become pretty significant.

    Still want that $54, congressman?

    This law is, with a minimal amount of thought, counterproductive, likely unenforceable, and a complete waste of taxpayer’s time.

    We need politicians who think pragmatically, not idiotically.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Sarah March 16, 2009 at 11:37 am

    I bike everywhere because (among other reasons) I can’t afford a car. My bike is worth around $54, and to have to “buy” it again every couple of years is ridiculous!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • El Biciclero March 16, 2009 at 2:09 pm

    Cary W.–

    “…all these services…”

    What services? Bike lanes are not a service. Most of the time they are a gutter, and very many cyclists can do without them anyway.

    “Step up and pay for the right to ride.”

    Rights are not something one pays for, except through vigilance and responsible behavior. Privileges are what one pays for. Privileges like driving a motor vehicle.

    I’m surprised (OK, not really) that so many (mostly non-biking) people are happy to pay for parking spaces, HOV lanes, passing lanes–any kind of limited- or restricted-use asphalt strip you want to name–but get so up-in-arms if that strip is for use by a cyclist. The psychology seems to be, “I don’t mind paying for pieces of the road I might never be allowed to use, as long as only other drivers are ever allowed to use them.” Methinks the “cyclists don’t pay” mantra is an acceptable disguise for what amounts to “modeism”.

    Supporters of this bill, dead as it may be, want payback, but not in the monetary sense. They want revenge for every cyclist who has ever slowed them down, run a stop sign, been spotted without a helmet, been run over, flipped them off, looked goofy, been killed, passed them on the right, made better time in traffic, lost weight, not had lights, banged on their car, yelled at them, taken the lane, made a left turn, had a flat tire, signaled a turn, not signaled a turn, made them question their driving skills, come “out of nowhere”, complained about the weather, gotten a tan, run up the stairs without wheezing, complained about crazy drivers, ridden in the rain, wobbled, carried groceries, pulled a trailer, carried a kid, ridden a tandem, ridden a recumbent… the list is long, because most of these folks don’t like ANY cyclist. They believe no one on a bike belongs anywhere but on a special trail, and no one rides for transportation. They think all cyclists are out strictly for “recreation”, and that a cyclist’s “fun” should not inhibit their travel or cause them to pay extra attention on the road. Bills like this are conceived out of prejudice as punishment of one class of road user.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Opus the Poet March 16, 2009 at 4:36 pm

    @Cary W #165

    The common way of paying to enforce laws that protect one group from another is to make the group being protected against pay for the costs, rather than the protected group. Making the protected group pay for their protection is akin to running a racket, which is against the law.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Sean March 17, 2009 at 6:26 am

    Sounds like Wayne thinks all bikers don’t own cars…seeing as every biker I know also owns a car, we, the car – owning bikers, should be exempt from this idea (if it were ever passed), since, if we weren’t, we be essentially double – taxed.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] » Blog Archive » A conversation with Rep. Krieger … […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • EastVancouverite March 26, 2009 at 6:12 pm

    I would not have a problem with registering my bicycle, nor paying a modest fee to do so. However I strenuously object to the assertion that cyclists do not pay for any infrastructure they may use. I pay property taxes, a transportation levy on our hydro bill, Provincial and Federal sales taxes, and Provincial and Federal income taxes, all of which are used to some degree to plan, build, maintain, and police our road and bicycle infrastructure in Vancouver, BC. The portion of total transportation infrastructre expenditures that are derrived from gas taxes are limited and not at all out of line with the additional wear and tear that motor vehicles create.

    If a bicycle registration and funding process was created I would expect the police force to create a bicycle crime arm to address the chronic vandalism and theft of bicycles in much the same way motor vehicles have their own police unit. I would also like to see that the bicycle registration fees predominantly flow to actual bicycle infrastructure, and associated maintenance and policing, instead of more road infrastructure that cyclists may simply use.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] a law requiring cyclists to pay a $54 registration fee every two years. A Portland bike blog interviewed the lawmaker in question, who explained the proposal this way: “[B]ikes have used the roads […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • seriously. wtf. April 2, 2009 at 1:21 pm

    […] (which you can read about in the aforelinnked legislation page), but Krieger’s comments to BikePortland are what spurred me to write a brief post […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Koolaid_Slammer April 2, 2009 at 8:47 pm

    No one would follow it and no one would enforce it, pointless.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rick Risemberg April 3, 2009 at 6:59 am

    In the first place, bicyclists do pay–and overpay–for their use of roads. Especially if they don’t also drive.

    Car fees and taxes cover between 16% and 40% of the direct cost of maintaining a huge road and parking network for drivers–studies from Wisconsin (Mark E. Hansen) to Texas ( ) show this.

    Bicyclists don’t need extra lanes just for parking, and huge freeways and interchanges either. Car taxes DON’T pay for all of that; driving is subsidized through general fees and taxes, paid by bicyclists as well as others, many of whom are non-drivers (the very old, the very young, the very conscientious).

    And, as pointed out in an earlier comment, bicyclists don’t tear up the tiny portion of those bloated roads they do use, and so don’t require the state to engage in constant expensive repairs.

    This leaves out the high social and financial cost of pollution, global warming, and public health mitigations, also paid out of general taxes, to cover the ill effects of cars-I am speaking only of road costs.

    So if you look at the full accounting, drivers OWE money to cyclists–especially cyclists who don’t also drive.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] one might suspect, asking Krieger to further explain the rationale for his bill, as Bike Portland did, reveals his motives to be rooted as much in suspicion of cyclists in general as in any desire for […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] a law requiring cyclists to pay a $54 registration fee every two years. A Portland bike blog interviewed the lawmaker in question, who explained the proposal this way: “[B]ikes have used the roads in […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] an interview with Jonathan Maus at Bike Portland, Rep. Krieger is clearly upset that Oregon’s vulnerable road users law puts too […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Charles, G April 4, 2009 at 1:46 pm

    Is this guy nuts, that sounds like a Representative, my God, where are we going?
    He has got to be operating without a brain. Register prostitution, medical check-up every month, issue them a licence, make money on that and us good men have a place to go if wifee-pooh is upset with us. That makes hell of a lot more sense.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • memo.ryecroft – A Few More Things April 6, 2009 at 6:00 am

    […] proposed a law requiring cyclists to register their bikes at a cost of $54 every two years. In his words: “Bikes have used the roads in this state forever and have never contributed a penny. The only […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Motorized Bicycles April 7, 2009 at 4:32 pm

    “Personally, I think that somebody must have been bullied as a child, and had his bike taken away from him. Someone should buy him a shiny new bike and take him for a ride. If he can’t handle the pedaling, let’s get him a bike motor. Once he feels the wind in his hair again he’ll probably change his mind.”

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] crazy son of a bitch in Portland wants the DMV in Oregon to charge a $54 registration fee for every bike on the road along with another $54 licensing fee due every two years. They’re calling it a “bike […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] infrastructure in Oregon , that it is time cyclists paid their “fair share.” He told Jonathan Maus of BikePortland: “This is an opportunity for the bicyclists to start contributing to our roads,” he said. “If […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] infrastructure in Oregon , that it is time cyclists paid their “fair share.” He told Jonathan Maus of BikePortland: “This is an opportunity for the bicyclists to start contributing to our roads,” he said. “If […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] infrastructure in Oregon , that it is time cyclists paid their “fair share.” He told Jonathan Maus of BikePortland: “This is an opportunity for the bicyclists to start contributing to our roads,” he said. “If […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Should Cyclists Pay Road Taxes? April 10, 2009 at 8:59 am

    […] spent on bike infrastructure in Oregon , that it is time cyclists paid their “fair share.” He told Jonathan Maus of BikePortland: “This is an opportunity for the bicyclists to start contributing to our roads,” he said. “If […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] infrastructure in Oregon , that it is time cyclists paid their “fair share.” He told Jonathan Maus of BikePortland: “This is an opportunity for the bicyclists to start contributing to our roads,” he said. “If […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] infrastructure in Oregon , that it is time cyclists paid their “fair share.” He told Jonathan Maus of BikePortland: “This is an opportunity for the bicyclists to start contributing to our roads,” he said. “If […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] infrastructure in Oregon , that it is time cyclists paid their “fair share.” He told Jonathan Maus of BikePortland: “This is an opportunity for the bicyclists to start contributing to our roads,” he said. “If […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] infrastructure in Oregon , that it is time cyclists paid their “fair share.” He told Jonathan Maus of BikePortland: “This is an opportunity for the bicyclists to start contributing to our roads,” he said. “If […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] infrastructure in Oregon , that it is time cyclists paid their “fair share.” He told Jonathan Maus of BikePortland: “This is an opportunity for the bicyclists to start contributing to our roads,” he said. “If […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] April 13, 2009 by stopreadingthisandrideabike Oregon State Representative Wayne Krieger believes so, according to BikePortland. […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] infrastructure in Oregon , that it is time cyclists paid their “fair share.” He told Jonathan Maus of BikePortland: “This is an opportunity for the bicyclists to start contributing to our roads,” he said. “If […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] has proposed a law requiring cyclists to register their bikes at a cost of $54 every two years. In his words: “Bikes have used the roads in this state forever and have never contributed a penny. The only […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] – Representative Wayne Krieger (R-Gold Beach) promoting his 2009 failed mandatory bike registration bill. […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Bjorn September 29, 2010 at 9:52 am