Bike tax in Oregon

[bytewizard]

I know what will follow... How do we pay for the upkeep of sidewalks and other public areas? That's right, a shoe tax! To make it "fair", we will tax by shoe size. After all, the bigger the shoe, the more wear and tear is created. Of course, special tax categories will be added for those shoes which create special damage, such as "High heel tax", "Work boot tax", and the dreaded "Golf shoe/cleat" tax.

 

[Oystein]

...If they don't and real bike lane are made, bike don't do detectable damage on them, only truck and cars which park on them, and the weather. ...

In my experience, most bike lane damage is made by the roots of trees and shrubs.
I propose a tree tax.

 

[bruto]

Time to license and regulate bicycles and riders.

That (to my mind) stupid, shortsighted, anti-green, dangerous, economically ruinous and unenforceable idea was floated some time ago in Vermont. It was, of course, as you'd expect, the proposal of a conservative legislator who was in the habit of ranting about too much government and too many regulations, but he saw no problem with the idea of instituting a new set of government regulations, penalties, legal hurdles, and administrative bureaucracy, on the grounds that bicycles were slowing him down when he was driving on his urgent business and "freeloading" the scenery! Yes that was actually one of his arguments.

The proposal was to require all bicyclists above the age of 16 to register every bike they owned, and to be licensed. Now, among other things, this would presumably give the police a right to stop, frisk and question any rider they thought might be in violation, including teenagers who would not be, and would, in this instance, have required out of state cyclists in this tourist-dependent state, to register before they could ride on our roads, meaning among other things that no out of state tourist could ride into Vermont during hours in which the bureaucracy was not open. And, of course, the exemption for kids amplifies the idea that bicycles are for kids, not adults. Aside from all the other silly consequences of such a bill, it would almost certainly require that every highway entering the state from any other state or province would have to have a prominent sign announcing that this rule, unique in the world, applied, and providing information on how to cope with it. It would also, i the case of Vermont, have required that many of the State's own publications, many of which promote cycling as a tourist activity, be rewritten, and provisions made for out of state tourists not only to be accomodated, but perhaps even to obtain licenses before arriving, a new bureaucracy which would, in turn, have to be publicized throughout the world.

The stupidities of such a scheme are abundant. Now of course I speak here as an advocate of bicycle riding, and a former (alas, only former after my encounter with a car) road cyclist, but if one proposes such things, one must contend with many complications, including the almost automatic inherent added energy cost. No doubt the added revenue would look good on the balance sheet if one fails to count the hidden and not so hidden costs to the population. How many heart attacks do you suppose it would take to offset? How many lawsuits for the deaths or traumas of vulnerable citizens would it take to offset? Not many, I surmise.

I can understand, even if I don't much like, the idea of an excise tax on new bicycle sales, but that is a far far different thing from taxing or regulating the use of bicycles. One idea is maybe a bit misguided, while the other is extremely bad and worse if you take the time to think about it with even a smidgen of actual imagination to offset the automatic partisan spin.

 

[Elagabalus]

That (to my mind) stupid, shortsighted, anti-green, dangerous, economically ruinous and unenforceable idea was floated some time ago in Vermont. It was, of course, as you'd expect, the proposal of a conservative legislator who was in the habit of ranting about too much government and too many regulations, but he saw no problem with the idea of instituting a new set of government regulations, penalties, legal hurdles, and administrative bureaucracy, on the grounds that bicycles were slowing him down when he was driving on his urgent business and "freeloading" the scenery! Yes that was actually one of his arguments.

The proposal was to require all bicyclists above the age of 16 to register every bike they owned, and to be licensed. Now, among other things, this would presumably give the police a right to stop, frisk and question any rider they thought might be in violation, including teenagers who would not be, and would, in this instance, have required out of state cyclists in this tourist-dependent state, to register before they could ride on our roads, meaning among other things that no out of state tourist could ride into Vermont during hours in which the bureaucracy was not open. And, of course, the exemption for kids amplifies the idea that bicycles are for kids, not adults. Aside from all the other silly consequences of such a bill, it would almost certainly require that every highway entering the state from any other state or province would have to have a prominent sign announcing that this rule, unique in the world, applied, and providing information on how to cope with it. It would also, i the case of Vermont, have required that many of the State's own publications, many of which promote cycling as a tourist activity, be rewritten, and provisions made for out of state tourists not only to be accomodated, but perhaps even to obtain licenses before arriving, a new bureaucracy which would, in turn, have to be publicized throughout the world.

The stupidities of such a scheme are abundant. Now of course I speak here as an advocate of bicycle riding, and a former (alas, only former after my encounter with a car) road cyclist, but if one proposes such things, one must contend with many complications, including the almost automatic inherent added energy cost. No doubt the added revenue would look good on the balance sheet if one fails to count the hidden and not so hidden costs to the population. How many heart attacks do you suppose it would take to offset? How many lawsuits for the deaths or traumas of vulnerable citizens would it take to offset? Not many, I surmise.

I can understand, even if I don't much like, the idea of an excise tax on new bicycle sales, but that is a far far different thing from taxing or regulating the use of bicycles. One idea is maybe a bit misguided, while the other is extremely bad and worse if you take the time to think about it with even a smidgen of actual imagination to offset the automatic partisan spin.

THIS.


It's another City-Slicker-motorists-stuck-in-traffic resent bicyclists law. Closely related to Motorcyclists lane splitting isn't fair for other road users resentment.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I used to be more positive on cyclists. Now that I've moved closer in to the city center, some basic knowledge of laws (like the fact they apply to bicycles in the roadway) and an occasional suspension actually sounds lovely.

 

[mgidm86]

Simple solution .. buy a used bike!

New trend in Oregon - bikes and wheels sold separately.

 

[Elagabalus]

If it's really earmarked for bike lanes and paths, then I'd probably support it (especially since I already own my bike). I would imagine the bike stores disagree. And why make it only apply to bikes over $200 and with 26-inch rims? Yes, I understand don't want to tax kids' bikes (under 26-inch rims). But most kids' bikes are under $200 anyway. So if an overly doting parent goes out and buys their little brat a $1500 BMX bike there's no tax, but if a min wage guy pays $200 (which is not a luxury bike price by any means), he gets socked with the $15 tax.

And yeah, once established, the tax probably never goes away, but the earmarking for bicycle-related projects will probably not survive the next economic downturn.

The wording is inappropriate. They should just say 'this tax does not affect any bicycles with 'sprockets'"

 

[mgidm86]

I used to be more positive on cyclists. Now that I've moved closer in to the city center, some basic knowledge of laws (like the fact they apply to bicycles in the roadway) and an occasional suspension actually sounds lovely.

Yes! Either they are required to follow the rules of the road or they are not. If they are not, then I am not liable when I run one over.

Seriously though, there is enough rage on the roads already without allowing bikes to run stop signs and red lights. But how to enforce?

Perhaps if you are on the road you should have a registered bike with a license plate on it so we (and cops and traffic cameras) can identify you when you break the law. Why are only cars subject to this? It's not like bikes can't cause fatal collisions.

Many bicyclists don't seem to realize how poorly many people drive. I see them straddling the white line of the bike lane while cars are whizzing past at 60 mph just 3 feet away from them, or even less. That's suicide.

There is a perception that many cyclists are jerks because of the way they ride. I suppose this is also true for motorists. We are nice people until we hit the road (or comment on a forum).

ETA /off topic:
I ride motorcycles though it's been many years. You won't catch me riding on the streets of the Bay Area. Is it legal for a car to split lanes like a motorcycle if it can squeeze through? I've seen people try it. Gawd people are insane on the road.

 

[bruto]

Yes! Either they are required to follow the rules of the road or they are not. If they are not, then I am not liable when I run one over.

Seriously though, there is enough rage on the roads already without allowing bikes to run stop signs and red lights. But how to enforce?

Perhaps if you are on the road you should have a registered bike with a license plate on it so we (and cops and traffic cameras) can identify you when you break the law. Why are only cars subject to this?

Many bicyclists don't seem to realize how poorly many people drive. I see them straddling the white line of the bike lane while cars are whizzing past at 60 mph just 3 feet away from them, or even less. That's suicide.

There is a perception that many cyclists are jerks because of the way they ride. I suppose this is also true for motorists. We are nice people until we hit the road (or comment on a forum).

Where I live the rights and duties of cyclists on public roads are, like those of all public road users, regulated by law, and a cyclist who disobeys is, at least theoretically, subject to arrest, fine, etc. Running red lights and stop signs is certainly forbidden, and I would certainly agree that it's bad practice and nobody should be exempt from the law. The remedy, though, I think, is to enforce the laws that exist, and not to make new burdensome ones.

Obviously, too, if cyclists were not obligated to obey the rules of the road, it would be because those rules do not apply, and then running them over would be a violation on your part of the rules that do apply. That's not the case anywhere I know of, but even when people are wrong, and your liability therefore limited, I think it might behoove even the righteous ranter to decide whether or not a person's offense calls for his death, and to exercise a certain amount of caution.

 

[mgidm86]

Where I live the rights and duties of cyclists on public roads are, like those of all public road users, regulated by law, and a cyclist who disobeys is, at least theoretically, subject to arrest, fine, etc. Running red lights and stop signs is certainly forbidden, and I would certainly agree that it's bad practice and nobody should be exempt from the law. The remedy, though, I think, is to enforce the laws that exist, and not to make new burdensome ones.

Obviously, too, if cyclists were not obligated to obey the rules of the road, it would be because those rules do not apply, and then running them over would be a violation on your part of the rules that do apply. That's not the case anywhere I know of, but even when people are wrong, and your liability therefore limited, I think it might behoove even the righteous ranter to decide whether or not a person's offense calls for his death, and to exercise a certain amount of caution.

Ya well the running them over thing was probably a joke

Bicyclists are not supposed to run stop signs and red lights, it just isn't, or can't be enforced. Running them over may give them the incentive that the cops can't. Hmmmm....

 

[Delphic Oracle]

That and (when they are in traffic lanes) minimum speed issues.

This is less common than red/stop runners, but at least once a week I come across one that can't top 15mph on a major traffic artery snarling everything up.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[kookbreaker]

Ya well the running them over thing was probably a joke

Bicyclists are not supposed to run stop signs and red lights, it just isn't, or can't be enforced. Running them over may give them the incentive that the cops can't. Hmmmm....

By that token can we shoot drivers using cell phones when they drive, or when they speed, or right turn on red lights into pedestrians?

I see we've gotten to the part of the conversation where cyclists are being demonized and blamed for all the traffic woes.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

By that token can we shoot drivers using cell phones when they drive, or when they speed, or right turn on red lights into pedestrians?

I see we've gotten to the part of the conversation where cyclists are being demonized and blamed for all the traffic woes.

My intent is not to vilify them, but to demonstrate a valid need for registration and identification of the bike and licensing for riders (to legally ride in streets/bike lanes).

That, in turn, could be the revenue stream rather than a regressive flat flee on every frame sold. It also improves rider education, awareness, and safety.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[kookbreaker]

My intent is not to vilify them, but to demonstrate a valid need for registration and identification of the bike and licensing for riders (to legally ride in streets/bike lanes).

Well you have failed utterly to demonstrate such a valid need. Bruto has explained why very well already, but beyond that all you have done is complain about a few scofflaw cases to villify cclists thus invent a 'need' to crack down on them.

That, in turn, could be the revenue stream rather than a regressive flat flee on every frame sold. It also improves rider education, awareness, and safety.

This is such a failure of basic logic I don't know where to begin. You are pushing 'not even wrong' territory.

 

[Aepervius]

My intent is not to vilify them, but to demonstrate a valid need for registration and identification of the bike and licensing for riders (to legally ride in streets/bike lanes).

That, in turn, could be the revenue stream rather than a regressive flat flee on every frame sold. It also improves rider education, awareness, and safety.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

There is no valid need. Firstly, you don't seem to realize how much a financial burden it would pose on people on bike. Some of them are using them because a car is far too expansive you know. Registration would not be in cent.

Secondly what problem is it supposed to solve ? *car* are registered and burn stops, right of way, and red light when they think no camera or cop are there all the damn time. Having registration would mean that people like me which respect all stuff pay for absolutely nada, and idiot on bike burning light or stops would anyway not be caught. So registration solve nothing, otherwise it would be a solved problem for cars, motorbike & trucks !

"But" , you will tell me, "what about automated system ?" they would have to be retrofitted , gauged, and tested. Guess how much that would cost compared to possible fine ? Factor of magnitudes more.

Finally this is a solution in search of a problem. We do not put registration on bike or people on foot, because even if they break rule, at most they risk only their own life and do not put in danger others. On the other hand car/trucks/motorbike are dangerous, and regularly kill 30K+ people in the US. Remind me how many people death were caused by bike - aside from the biker itself ? And yes putting registration on bike make as much sense as asking people on foot to have a license plate above their ass.

Your proposed solution solve nothing except a feel good "stick it to the biker" general feeling that most car owner have about those pesky biker using "their" road. If I had ONE cent for every car owner which exhibited that feeling... I would probably be a few dollar rich.

Do I like biker disrespecting the rule ? No i think they are utter imbecile like those car speeding on the road because they think they know better than everybody else what the speed should be. Look up any thread and you will find dozen of car driver pretending the speed limit are too low and THEY know better.

How about starting with those 30K death then we can talk about biker once the car problem is solved.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Well you have failed utterly to demonstrate such a valid need. Bruto has explained why very well already, but beyond that all you have done is complain about a few scofflaw cases to villify cclists thus invent a 'need' to crack down on them.

Aside from broad and unprovable accusations about my motives, do you have something to add?

This is such a failure of basic logic I don't know where to begin. You are pushing 'not even wrong' territory.

Feel free to elaborate, but please don't just spend several sentences saying "nuh-uuuuh!"

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Requiring someone to take a test before riding in traffic, making only frames made for traffic speeds valid for street riding, and requiring identification (threat of being caught) will absolutely lead to increased education, awareness, and safety.

Perfect? No.

But not a "failure of basic logic."

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[kookbreaker]

Aside from broad and unprovable accusations about my motives, do you have something to add?



Feel free to elaborate, but please don't just spend several sentences saying "nuh-uuuuh!"

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

These sorts of plans would never generate enough revenue without being grossly unfair to cyclists.

They wouldn't even pay for the adminstration infrastructure to set it up and maintain it.

They sure as heck would never generate any income for bike paths, education, etc.

Our car fee & tax system doesn't even come close to paying for the road system, it is heavily subsidized. Why would it do so for bikes?

It would actively discourage riding.

It would do very, very little to stop scofflaw cycling.

Its a 'solution' for is what is either minimal or non-existant problem.

 

[Aepervius]

Requiring someone to take a test before riding in traffic, making only frames made for traffic speeds valid for street riding, and requiring identification (threat of being caught) will absolutely lead to increased education, awareness, and safety.

Perfect? No.

But not a "failure of basic logic."

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

All of which impose a cost without evident benefit. We already have here around "test" on basic traffic law bike have to respect - at school - because that is when most people learn to bike. We have awareness campaign too.

What do a test later bring ? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

A regular test for cars would bring far more, as people take bad habits, as much in bike as in cars, after a while. But cars are far more dangerous. That is why some always try to float the idea of regular test after 65/70 years old.

As for frame valid for city riding, I am sorry, but do they have a lever to switch to country riding ? because essentially you are asking something out of bike user a functionality that even car do not have - cars can go as quick as any road allow be it countryside straight line or city center. Bike are made to speed corresponding to what the owner can render with their muscle. And that's it. No more. No less.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

There is no valid need. Firstly, you don't seem to realize how much a financial burden it would pose on people on bike. Some of them are using them because a car is far too expansive you know. Registration would not be in cent.

I do realize it. Another waste of time to denigrate me, belittle my knowledge, poison the well, etc.

Secondly what problem is it supposed to solve ? *car* are registered and burn stops, right of way, and red light when they think no camera or cop are there all the damn time. Having registration would mean that people like me which respect all stuff pay for absolutely nada, and idiot on bike burning light or stops would anyway not be caught. So registration solve nothing, otherwise it would be a solved problem for cars, motorbike & trucks !

The more reliably you can be identified, the more you'll behave. Again this rebuttal acts like I said the world would be perfect.

Straw man.

"But" , you will tell me, "what about automated system ?" they would have to be retrofitted , gauged, and tested. Guess how much that would cost compared to possible fine ? Factor of magnitudes more.

Now you get to determine my future response?

That's not remotely where I'm headed with this.

If you want to just make up some dialogue to mentally masturbate, keep me out of it.

Finally this is a solution in search of a problem. We do not put registration on bike or people on foot, because even if they break rule, at most they risk only their own life and do not put in danger others. On the other hand car/trucks/motorbike are dangerous, and regularly kill 30K+ people in the US. Remind me how many people death were caused by bike - aside from the biker itself ? And yes putting registration on bike make as much sense as asking people on foot to have a license plate above their ass.

No, this is a person attempting to discuss shared costs and responsibilities of a public resource being met with emotional tantrums and words shoved in my mouth.

Your proposed solution solve nothing except a feel good "stick it to the biker" general feeling that most car owner have about those pesky biker using "their" road. If I had ONE cent for every car owner which exhibited that feeling... I would probably be a few dollar rich.

Again with the impugning of motives...

Do I like biker disrespecting the rule ? No i think they are utter imbecile like those car speeding on the road because they think they know better than everybody else what the speed should be. Look up any thread and you will find dozen of car driver pretending the speed limit are too low and THEY know better.

Now who's ranting and vilifying?

How about starting with those 30K death then we can talk about biker once the car problem is solved.

As you've made abundantly clear, that will never happen. Perhaps you're just abrogating responsibility with a petulant excuse (see how easy it is to just make **** up about others?).

So perfection not being need met in one thing before any attention be paid to another, your objection fails.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk