Bike tax in Oregon

[Metullus]

I suppose that one's attitude vis-à-vis bicycles and the rules of the road might be largely informed by where they live. I live in a rural area in Northern California that is blessed with great rides. Popular rides will take cyclists along the Russian River to the Pacific Ocean, through dark and cool redwoods and along miles of vineyards. These are very popular with both locals and week-end visitors from the Bay Area.

Unfortunately, these routes have a couple of things in common: they are, more often than not, narrow roads with little or no shoulders, and they are, not infrequently, the only routes of access for local use. As a result, it is not uncommon for automobiles or trucks on these roads to find themselves held up by bicyclists, driving behind them with no safe way to pass. Local riders tend to know the reality and will ride in tandem and pull over to let drivers pass, out-of-towners are not often so courteous, often riding side by side and seldom pulling over to let people by.

State law generally requires that when there are 5 or more vehicles held up by slower vehicles, the slower vehicles must turn off and allow them to pass; this, however, does not seem to apply to bicycles. And therein lies the rub...

Don't get me going on riding on sidewalks, riding on the wrong side of the road, and riding across crosswalks.

I would LOVE it if bicyclists were required to pass a driving rules test before being able to venture onto the road. Just like I had to pass before I was allowed to ride my bike to school as a kid.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

All of which impose a cost without evident benefit.

The evident benefit is increased education, awareness, and safety.

I want to stress increased is the word I'm using as there seems to be some confusion on that point.

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.

I took driver safety in high school.

I still had to do the license test and absolutely get the benefit of doing so.

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

Citation needed.

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.

Curious, you're saying more testing does make things less dangerous?

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.

Like maybe...gears?

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[Oystein]

...
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 ?

Good question - do you have an answer?
Seriously, I wonder if statistics exist that estimate number of injuries and deaths incurred on others per 1 million miles, for different vehicle classes, including bicycles. Probably difficult to come by - few traffic accident statistics ever look at bodily harm to the other party, rather than total.

it certainly IS possible to kill someone by hitting them with a bicycle, so I am sure it does happen occasionally. Such an event is rare not only because bikes are inherently less dangerous (due to small momentum and kinetic energy), but also because far fewer ride bikes, and they ride far fewer miles.

And yes putting registration on bike make as much sense as asking people on foot to have a license plate above their ass. ...

I see a clear trend to people putting individual markings on their bodies...

 

[Elagabalus]

...it certainly IS possible to kill someone by hitting them with a bicycle, so I am sure it does happen occasionally. Such an event is rare not only because bikes are inherently less dangerous (due to small momentum and kinetic energy), but also because far fewer ride bikes, and they ride far fewer miles...

Sadly, it does happen:

http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2014/09/sorry-we-have-important-things-to.html

 

[kookbreaker]

Frankly the idea of requiring special training and licenses for bike riders just has no benefit.

Yes, you took classes and had to pass a test to drive a car. That is because a vehicle is a multi-ton object that can move at very high speed. Even with the testing tens of thousands die from the use of cars every year. A bike can kill someone, but it is rare because it is not easy. The number of deaths caused by cyclists in a year could probably be counted on one hand. By comparison a single mistake behind the wheel of a car can kill or main dozens in seconds.

Cyclists do misbehave. I won't pretend that doesn't happen. The solution isn't to make the requirements to ride a bike more of a burden. That is a simple solution for simple minds - minds that often just want to get cyclists off the road. The solution is one that actually requires more effort.

Cyclists often misbehave because the infrastructure was not designed with them in mind. The roadways are hostile, and the drivers doubly so. The law does very little to respect their needs and protections. Even when they obey the laws to the letter drivers can and will treat them with hostility and take actions that risk the cyclists lives, sometimes just to save a handful of seconds.

With that attitude facing them, its not really a terrible surprise that some cyclists say the hell with what the law says, since it won't protect me I am not going to care about it. I'm not saying this is right, I'm saying this is where it comes from. Then drivers see these actions and assume all cyclists are scofflaws and start treating them badly...it just keeps going around.

What does help the problem? Better facilities for one. In cities where roads have been better redesigned to handle cyclists the worst cyclist offenses drop rather dramatically where those facilities are. New York, Philadelphia, Denver and Washington DC have all seen drops in things like wrong-way riding and sidewalk riding where the facilities are set up.

Tests, by comparison, are nothing but a barrier. And we have seen in the past how making cycling harder simply stops people from cycling. Helmet laws, often held up as a life-saver, have resulted in a drop in ridership when they are placed as they add both an additional cost burden to cycling along with the fact that many folks don't want to wear them. Fees for bike licenses will either have no financial benefit after factoring in the infrastructure costs, or would have to be so high as to be a disproportionate burden to cyclists.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Cyclists often misbehave because the infrastructure was not designed with them in mind. The roadways are hostile, and the drivers doubly so. The law does very little to respect their needs and protections. Even when they obey the laws to the letter drivers can and will treat them with hostility and take actions that risk the cyclists lives, sometimes just to save a handful of seconds.

With that attitude facing them, its not really a terrible surprise that some cyclists say the hell with what the law says, since it won't protect me I am not going to care about it. I'm not saying this is right, I'm saying this is where it comes from. Then drivers see these actions and assume all cyclists are scofflaws and start treating them badly...it just keeps going around.

QFT. I do some somewhat iffy things when riding a bike, but it stems not from a disregard from the law, but rather from the perception that my own personal safety when cycling is best optimized by assuming that all motorists are actively trying to kill me.

Dave

 

[zooterkin]

QFT. I do some somewhat iffy things when riding a bike, but it stems not from a disregard from the law, but rather from the perception that my own personal safety when cycling is best optimized by assuming that all motorists are actively trying to kill me.

Dave

It's a not unreasonable assumption.

I draw the line at going through red lights, and have spoken to other cyclists about it when I've seen them doing it (both when riding myself and when driving). It may sometimes be a safer option, but my view is it antagonises too many motorists to be a sensible practice in the long run.

I usually ride on the road, but these days I have little compunction about using some stretches of pavement for some particular junctions or to avoid going around the whole town because of a one-way system. I wouldn't expect to have right of way doing that, of course. Things are getting blurred, anyway, with a lot more cycle and mixed use paths especially where I work; however, I generally prefer the road because it doesn't have so many hazards as some cycle paths, and is generally faster.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

When I was at school (in the UK, quite a while ago) we had to pass our cycling proficiency test before being allowed to cycle to school. It wasn't a particularly onerous restriction and I don't seemly an adult equivilent would expect such a terrible idea.

I live out interested countryside now, in a relatively flat area bordered by steep hills, on the flat, the problem isn't people using their bikes to get to work (a minority anyway), but rather large groups of cyclists racing on the public roads or practicing, usually in groups riding two or three abrest. The roads around here are quite twisty, get stuck behind one of these groups and you can be there for a while. The other week, on my way to work, I was stuck behind a group of twelve. Twelve cyclists strung out, but close enough that there are no gaps large enough to safely pull in (especially as they are all trying to overtake each other) takes up a significant distance on the road, a long straight is needed to overtake safely and they caused quite a tailback.

In the hilly areas the problem is that you turn a corner and find someone on or near the center of the road, at a virtual stop because they are determined to cycle up the damned Hill even though it means standing on the pedals and wobbling all over the lane.

We have a number of shared use walking/cycle routes around here that are great, unfortunately there aren't any on what I would consider the most useful route. But here I find that there is tension between the riders and walkers because almost silent bikes come flying up behind walkers who's first warning is the squeal of brakes. It really annoys me because it's so easily avoided, when you see a pedestrian on a shared path RING YOUR BELL. I'm amazed by the number of cyclists who don't even have a bell fitted to their bikes (it's always the 'sport' bikes and lucrative, never the guy riding to work that don't have them). I've cycled along those routes and my experience of using a bell to warn people I'm behind them has been entirely positive.

Full disclosure: I drive a car and ride motorcycles and pushbikes.

 

[Dave Rogers]

When I was at school (in the UK, quite a while ago) we had to pass our cycling proficiency test before being allowed to cycle to school.

Same here, but our school also offered a cycling course prior to taking the test, which was to be conducted at school. I was the one who pointed out the obvious contradiction to the teachers. Yes, I was as much of a smartass at seven as I am at fifty-seven.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

QFT. I do some somewhat iffy things when riding a bike, but it stems not from a disregard from the law, but rather from the perception that my own personal safety when cycling is best optimized by assuming that all motorists are actively trying to kill me.

Dave

I am not that paranoid, but I, too, take decisions (on what path or lane to take, where to cross motor roads, how to interact with pedestrians, whom to grant right of way etc.) only loosely based on traffic laws but on what is actually safer for me and the other folks in traffic. I avoid the bike lane and ride on the street when there is, at the moment, no motor traffic near, and mothers with kids are congesing the bike lane. I surrender trucks the right of way because I fell safer behind than in front of them. I cross the street when it's empty and not when I get a green light. In fact, my only serious bike accident (at age 12, it landed me in hospital for 3 weeks with serious brain trauma) was CAUSED by me waiting for the green light for bicyclists and pedestrians, instead of doing the smart thing and start when the cars start, so I am already on the other side before they have a chance to kill me (at the time, that particular light for muscular traffic went green a few seconds after that for the motorized traffic - to this day I haven't figured out why).

 

[kookbreaker]

When I was at school (in the UK, quite a while ago) we had to pass our cycling proficiency test before being allowed to cycle to school. It wasn't a particularly onerous restriction and I don't seemly an adult equivilent would expect such a terrible idea.
.

Because there wouldn't be an adult equivelant.

You were going to school where the test where administered. You were presumably assigned time to take the test.

Do you think any bike tester for an adult is going to show up at your place of work to run such a bike test?

No, in the US you doubtless would have to travel to one of a very limited number of 'bike test facilites' that will, at best, be dropped in the same locations that driver's tests are held. Meaning travel to them can be onerous as they are placed where cars can get to them, not bicycles.

Not to mention you have to make an appointment, at least with driver's licenses and I doubt cyclists would be any better - should I point out that the driver license locations near me have a 3 month wait? Sure you can travel to less in demand locations (when getting my wife her PA license we had to drive to a facility 3 hours away).

All these hoops and burdens to go through, and what is the benefit for cyclists? All I see is there will be fewer cyclists on the road and that actually increases the danger.

 

[kookbreaker]

I draw the line at going through red lights, and have spoken to other cyclists about it when I've seen them doing it (both when riding myself and when driving). It may sometimes be a safer option, but my view is it antagonises too many motorists to be a sensible practice in the long run.

You're not wrong. But at the same time I have to say that drivers who complain about cyclists running lights are usually just projecting or finding excuses to be mad at cyclists.

Not even 5% of the cyclists I see running red lights are doing it under what I would considered dangerous circumstances. i.e. running the light while there are cars actually trying to get through the interesection. This is dangerous and often the poster child for the scofflaw cyclists. Thing is, of these minority cases I would say that only a 1/3 of them were intentional (i.e. being selfish jerkasses) - I've seen a number of these that were 'accidents' of misunderstanding the light or trying to push through a dangerous intersection.

The remainder? Well I see the vast majority of cyclists running red lights are waiting until the intersection is clear. There is an advantage to being on a bike in that you can look way up the street without having to actually enter the intersection. They go when it is obvious that no car will be reaching the intersection. illegal? Yes. Dangerous? a minor amount, probably less than speeding a car a above the speed limit, which I find bike-hating drivers get awful defensive about when when it is pointed out that is a law they frequently break. For some reason that doesn't count.

I don't run red lights on my bike because that is the law. But I also have a hard time getting over-excited about the ones who do so when the interesection is clear. I would note that at least a couple of states have toyed with changing the law to allow cyclists to cross red lights at their own risk if they feel it is clear.

 

[mgidm86]

Years go by and the quote and edit functions on this site, and this site only, still work only randomly with Firefox. For me.

Metullus
Don't get me going on riding on sidewalks, riding on the wrong side of the road, and riding across crosswalks.

I would LOVE it if bicyclists were required to pass a driving rules test before being able to venture onto the road. Just like I had to pass before I was allowed to ride my bike to school as a kid.

I found out it's actually legal to ride a bike on the sidewalk, didn't think it was. It is in Cali anyways.

One day I was backing my truck out of my driveway. I look many times both ways because I lived on a busy street and it had a lot of pedestrians as well.

So I back out and this kid on a BMX bike is suddenly there, hits his brakes and slides into the side of my truck. His brother was with him and started laughing hysterically, as any good older brother should do (which I also thought was pretty funny).

At the time I thought the kid was technically breaking the law riding on the sidewalk, and I told him to be careful. He was not hurt.

I later found out it is not illegal, and here is the problem I have with that.

I back out very carefully. I am looking for cars on the street. I am looking for bikes - on the street, hopefully going the correct direction. And I'm looking for pedestrians on the sidewalk.

So you have a bike on the sidewalk, going way faster than a pedestrian does. I don't scan that far up the sidewalks for pedestrians because they are slow. I do look for wheelchairs because they were common on that street.

But here comes this bike haulin' ass - maybe from a driveway or something. I don't think bikes should be allowed on the sidewalk. Then again, I don't want an 8-year old in the road.

Actually, now that I think about it, I rarely see kids playing outside or riding bikes at all. The "kids on bikes" thing isn't much of a problem, it's the adults.

As far as registration for bikes being stupid because it won't solve anything, like bikes running red lights, a license plate would solve that. That's how they nab cars. Maybe having some ID on the bike will slow them down. Just thinking out loud really.

And while it's true that most bike/car accidents don't injure the car driver, who usually has to pay for damages? Who has to live with the fact that they just ran somebody over through no fault of their own? And who's to say that the car didn't kill someone else in an attempt to avoid collision with the bike?

 

[bruto]

Just a quick note on the above:

Riding on sidewalks varies with the locale. In some places it's the only legal option, and in some others it's not legal at all.

For myself I prefer when it is not legal. Bicycles belong on the road, and a motorist who actually bothers to think about things will realize that the impediment is very slight, and very temporary. It's really really easy to make up the time lost.

I especially dislike the idea of riding on sidewalks when the riding is opposite to the direction of road traffic, as it is indeed very easy to miss a wrong-way cyclist.

As for liability, it would be nice if motorists were truly liable for the harm they do, but in reality, rationalization and bicycle hatred on the part of drivers, rapacious insurance companies and biased courts make the result often far less satisfactory. IN the US at least the system is not well arranged, and the settlement, even for serious, life altering injuries, is likely to be minimal.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Just another quick note on the above:

Back in, not out. In the UK I believe it's technically not allowed to back out on to a major road because when backing out you can't see any oncoming traffic clearly enough. If you back into a driveway and drive out forwards, your view is always better where you need it to be.

Dave

 

[P.J. Denyer]

You were going to school where the test where administered. You were presumably assigned time to take the test.

You'd presume wrong. The course was held on a school playground, but it was not run by or administered by the school and was held outside of school hours. It was a national scheme run by RoSPA.

I also did my first motorcycle course on a school playground, for what it's worth. That wasn't part of my schooling either.

As an adult I've also managed to attend courses on a number of subjects, some work related, some not, some related to hobbies and/or transport. Somehow I've managed despite having to book them and do them in my own time.

 

[kookbreaker]

You'd presume wrong. The course was held on a school playground, but it was not run by or administered by the school and was held outside of school hours. It was a national scheme run by RoSPA.

I also did my first motorcycle course on a school playground, for what it's worth. That wasn't part of my schooling either.

As an adult I've also managed to attend courses on a number of subjects, some work related, some not, some related to hobbies and/or transport. Somehow I've managed despite having to book them and do them in my own time.

Nevertheless, all of these things had elements of being to your convenience. Your school playground and on a student schedule, and classes you took when your schedule fit them.

Compare that to trying to make an appointment with a DMV at a distant test location.

Its still a massive inconvenience with no proven tangible benefit, and the claimed benefits would be beaten by a dozen other options we could implement with much greater ease and expense.

 

[Aepervius]

As far as registration for bikes being stupid because it won't solve anything, like bikes running red lights, a license plate would solve that. That's how they nab cars. Maybe having some ID on the bike will slow them down. Just thinking out loud really.

No again it does not. Because as I said upthread, the detection system look at red light are calibrated for cars. Guess what a bike is not : a car. You are looking at overhauling the whole stuff. Good luck with that a cursory cost/benefit shows it for being stupid. And if bike are not detected, you are relying on cop being there on place, which they can ALREADY stop bike if they see an infraction without a plate.

You are simply pissing in the wind by adding a plate without nothing else. (worst actually because youa re adding a lot of people being forced to do request for a plate , for kids, and for nothing except money thrown down a drain).

On another story : a locality where I was living wanted to implement a system where a small side road had a light which was linked to the main road. Then instead of having the main road/side road go red regularly, it would check for cars (IIRC it was an induction process - I can't recall exactly - tech available back in ~1980).

Welllll....... It worked for cars and trucks. But not for bike. So bike had to take risk by going through no light because it never went up for them. Needless to say, the number of incident (some fatals) increased.

They removed it and went back to the time alternated system. Later they put a round about.

A car is not a bike and vice versa. System you do for one, may actually not work for them, or work too good and detect people which are on foot.

 

[Aepervius]

Another point you may be missing if you are not a regular or exclusive user of bike:
While a car it is easy to have the plate clean, they are in the middle far from dirt, it is not the case for bike. The would be either down right where they woukd quickly become dirty (the outside of my wheel protection goes quickly dirty when i go into dirty water Or car go beside me and dirty it While it protects against most of it, it is not complete).

While car driver has a duty to keep them clean how fo you expect that to be enforced to bike ? Sorry officer i was in the forest this morning. I have no rags to remove the dirt. Or you want to enforce it ? Then again you are putting even more burden on bike, now they have to walk everywhere with cleaning material. And how do you enforce it ? Asking the cop ? They barely enforce it for car you expect them to look at every oassing bike ?

Now granted i am maybe a bit of an exception since i go into a forest every day for 3 to 4 kilometers.

But there are other logistics problem. You have to make the plate readyble by a traffic camera without making it too big for the bike. Then you have to make it attached enough that it does not fly off or be easy stolen (no cop will look for a stolen plate of a Bike) otherwise everbody will simply steal them rather than spend money.

And then it may not block the red light behind the bike,and notstop the bike have something behind for transport. And it must be readable from various angle. A car you can have a nice angle , a bike can go in dance (go from one side to the other to give power To the pedal).

And i pass many other problems. All costing money to solve for what benefit ? Next to nothing.

 

[applecorped]

No plates, transponders with GPS.