That's what Oregon is pondering. $54.00 for a two year license. What are your thoughts on this?

http://www.katu.com/news/40905997.html

I understand the argument that bicycles don't pollute, don't take up as much space, etc.

That said, I feel there SHOULD be a license, for anyone over the age of 16 anyways, or anyone that uses their bicycle to commute.

For those who argue that it's an unfair taxation, my argument is that A) you're not paying 20+ cents per gallon state plus any local tax on gasoline, while pedaling your bicycle, B) it will help pay for current, and create MANY MORE bicycle lanes and make it more bike-friendly and C) it might well help create more patrol officers to make sure these bicyclists are following traffic laws!

They should also have a licenseing system. To many tickets, you lose your bike lic. right now there is no accountibility for a cyclist actions. Give him a ticket. Big deal.

My concern is that there are lots of poor people in town that ride bikes. It’s their only means of transportation. Plus I think it would be a waste of law enforcements time to start ticketing poor people because they can’t afford a $54 dollar fee every two years. And are the authorities going to confiscate bikes if this fee isn’t paid? Too, is it $54 dollars per person or per bike? Some people own several bikes.

I do think bicyclists would add credibility to their own cause if they paid a nominal fee for construction of bikeways and such, but how much, I don’t know.

There should be a licencing system for bicycles driven a vehicles on the roadway system. Since bicycles have a nominal impact on pavement wear and by diverting folks from automobile use have a positive impact in reducing demand, the fee amount should be enough to operate the licensing system and generate a small amount of funding dedicated to the provision of bicycle facilities.

I think that the state should franchise this licensing to the private sector. The private sector will have a profit interest in making sure that bicycles using the system are licensed and that the fees are collected.

The biggest challenge I see are the homeless folks who have bicycles as part of their household effects... what address do you use to license the bicyle and how do they afford the fee ... even if it is a nominal $5 or $10/year.

If you don't pay your car reg. they take your plates not your car.

If the proposed bicycle fee is $54.00 then to proportionately charge automobile drivers for their consumption of capacity and impact on roadway pavement the licensing would start to resemble the old system used in Washington where the value of the vehicle set the license fee ... and typical automobile fees were upwards of $200 per year.

No.

It's not a motor powered vehicle. And there are too many casual users of bikes that would pose a problem.

Without a license, the expectation that one has to follow the rules of the road isn't set. It's kind of ugly there. Mixed expectations. I think we can fix that with education.

And then there are some realities to deal with. If I'm on a bike, and traffic is light to none, I'm just gonna ride it! Most people are. Where there are not crowds, cars, etc... there is no harm in that. Never has been.

Frankly, I would work hard at setting the expectation that if you are in an accident with a bike, and you were not following the rules of the road, it's gonna be your fault.

That's how I play it anyway.

A ride down to a friends house, with my kids in quiet times is different than a ride to work in the morning rush.

And then look at Asian countries where there are a lot of bikes. Everybody gets along, and I'll bet the expectation is to reinforce the flow of people, not assert one's rights. If that is done, and it's a problem there, it's the riders fault!

And that's really how it should be.

Right now there isn't an equality on the road. And that comes with being able to casually ride for pleasure with few worries.

If we want that equality, then we are gonna lose that element of bikes and I'm not sure that is where most people would really want to go.

I personally would not favor the license, because I don't want to have to get serious about a bike every time I ride one. You won't find me biking to work either.

If I did, I would get serious about the bike and plan accordingly. All about expectations.

Then comes what do we license? Rider? That works differently than cars do. If it's the bike, do we then go down the road of plates, lights and other goodies?

In the end, say we do license things up. What do we get?

Will riders suddenly change their behavior, or drivers change theirs because it's licensed now?

I think somebody needs to demonstrate what changes would occur and that they would occur and that they have value before we assert that a license is required.

I'm open for that actually, but it's got to be supported well first. All I'm seeing is an escalation of forces here. And doing that, without considering the positive impact of the regulation isn't good for anyone.

If there is a license, I do not want private entities involved in it. The last thing needed is shakedowns and hassle from profiteers looking to make money from the use of bikes.

That's a no go for me. Either we have a license, and it's added to the existing licensing system, or we don't. If it's a fee, that can be collected in various ways, and that I would be ok with private interests doing. Maybe carry a receipt that is valid for a given time or something.

Still, that's ugly for the casual rider.

My big beef is the conflict only comes into serious play where biking for business is concerned. Sorting that out makes a license difficult for me. A fee is easier.

If it were me, I think I would do some PSAs about how there is going to be an ugly licensing fee requirement, if people don't get along. Make that really public and highlight some asses and their behavior and ask, is that worth it and see what happens!

If bikers really want to assert their rights in this way, they then face the very real possibility of also bearing responsibilities.

My personal view is that would not gain me anything as a cyclist. Better to improve my skill on the bike, and consider the needs of the road.

That is all this comes down to really.

The more I think about, the more I think it's a bad idea. But in large measure because it would disproportionately impact poor and homeless folks. Plus it would be huge waste of law enforcements time – chasing homeless bicyclists because they haven’t paid their licensing fee with the state.

I do think that if the city/county/state are going to invest in road projects that are dedicated to use by bicyclists, they should pay something. But again, I not sure how best to do that.

The bill requires a license for riding bikes only on highways - whatever that means. Clearly that means no license is required to ride on slow neighborhood streets. What about a busy road like Martin Luther King Blvd/99e? Or NE Broadway? I assume "highway" is a legal designation by the State of Oregon or the Oregon Department of Transportation...

Anyway, yes, I do favor licensing cyclists who ride on highways. Cyclists should too: the same bill creates a Bicycle Transportation Improvement Fund. If cyclists want more and better bike lanes, why shouldn't they pay for it?

Too hard to enforce, especially the casual bike rider. Will you have park police looking for illegal riders in public areas, or only concentrate on urban street riders? state wide? If so, are kids fine, but adults have to pay the fee? Will the local Barney Fife make a name for himself by writing more bike violation tickets than anyone statewide? If you use a license plate for bikes, they would be easy to fake. Is a plan like this really worth the effort. Then, how soon before mandatory insurance for bike riders becomes the law? How about a 10 dollar Riders permit as well?

Permit, registration, and proof of insurance please.

The rights/priveleges lines are increasing blurring.

Let's just go all out and publish a schedule of Living Fee.

Depending on what activities you want to participate in you pay the state/fed government a registration fee.
Driving, biking, watersking, snoboarding, walking on the beach, woodworking, employment fee for job title, leisure activities permit, you could register EVERTHING! How about a weekly shopping permit?

The ultimate pay to play!

"and proof of insurance...".

I could totally see it happening. If the state gets into the bicycle registration game, I could see the state requiring bicyclists to carry insurance. It would seem like a natural progression. I don’t like the idea of it, but I could see it happening.

Roger: Too hard to enforce, especially the casual bike rider. Will you have park police looking for illegal riders in public areas, or only concentrate on urban street riders? state wide? If so, are kids fine, but adults have to pay the fee?

Read the bill: it applies only to those over 18, so 17-and-under wouldn't be required to have a license. Since it applies only to highways, I don't see how it would be very hard to enforce. Cops are already all over the highways; if they see an adult cyclist without a license, just pull 'em over. What's so hard about that?

A one time fee to register a bicycle would aid in theft recovery
(There already is a National Bike Registry) but $27 a year fee guarantees heavy non-compliance and with diminishing resources for real enforcement by the the city/state this seems like a bad way to achieve any goal. "The bill, sponsored by three Republicans from southern Oregon" says it all. Politicians in southern Oregon don't have a feel for the cycling landscape in the Portland metro. A lone Democrat in Happey Valley is on board with the idea. The notion that bicycles wear out the road like a truck or a car is laughable. Clearly anyone that thinks that missed physics in high school.

"and proof of insurance..." Great idea. why do bikes get to go around without ins. lic. or reg. they are using the same road as we are. They can be adults too. And Andy--bikes take up space on the road.

Well, it looks like we are gonna escalate then.

With rights come responsibility.

Probably the right thing to do. So, highway then is 35 MPH roads and over? 45? Seems a good way to differentiate who rides where.

If it were me, I think I would require the license PERIOD on those roads. That keeps the little kids off of them, straightens out the expectations between riders and cars, and lets those casual users of bikes just stick to the backroads where there are few to no issues.

@Andy Totally! There is essentially NO wear from the bikes. This is for funding to provide bike services, set rider / driver expectations and such only, if anything.

I'm not sure what they mean by "highways" but this is my take on it. When you think of all the major bike riding corridors in Portland, most of them are not highways (Hwy 99 or Hwy 30). If I were a bicyclist, I would simply avoid riding on a designated highway. Rather than riding on MLK, I’d ride on either Vancouver or Williams. And the main corridors for many people riding across the Willamette in the mornings and the afternoons are the Hawthorne Bridge and Broadway Bridge. There are so many other alternatives to riding on highways that the law would seem pointless -- at least in Portland.

I'd really like to know what they mean by highway.

I don't think any idea that could potentially keep people in their cars instead of purchasing a bike is a good idea.

However, if motorists want to raise the gas tax to step up enforcement of bike riding rules, that's okay with me.

Ok, just curious how much government regulation do you think is enough? As long as it makes the state a buck? If it gets your craw, it oughta be a law? When do you say too far, too much?

Or, can there NEVER be enough?

just curious. Sometimes a good idea for one sucks for others.

Roger, to whom are you responding and about what?

To answer what "highway" means in Oregon... according to the Oregon Revised Statutes (Title 59 - Oregon Vehicle Code) quote:

801.305 “Highway.” (1) “Highway” means every public way, road, street, thoroughfare and place, including bridges, viaducts and other structures within the boundaries of this state, open, used or intended for use of the general public for vehicles or vehicular traffic as a matter of right.

(2) For the purpose of enforcing traffic offenses contained in the Oregon Vehicle Code, except for ORS 810.230, “highway” includes premises open to the public that are owned by a homeowners association and whose boundaries are contained within a service district established on or before July 1, 2002, under ORS 451.410 to 451.610. [1983 c.338 §51; 2007 c.561 §1]

So unless the proposed legislation redefines "highway" for the purpose of that legislative action, I believe that this section of State Statute applies...

As to Roger's question, I believe government regulation should go as far as the elected officials choose because if we don't like the new regulation we can choose to elect those who would repeal that particular legislation. Personally there are lots of things that government regulates, particularly as it applies to social issues, that I believe should be best left to the individual. Other issues relating to the welfare of the country itself, the government doesn't regulate enough -- I am not sure that the "buyer beware" works when information is not readily available to determine what the issues are.

Edust1958, thanks for the answer regarding the definition of highway. It explains it very well.

You are welcome... I deal with these issues all the time... but I am not, REPEAT, not a lawyer! LOL

Oh look, here's something we haven't taxed/licensed/regulated before, might bring in a few more bucks.

Come on Oregon get with the times, Let's talk Sales tax. Washington, Get with the program, most of the other states have an income tax. Missing some great revenue streams. Try that city income tax on for size as well, a nice 1 or two percent ought to fatten local coffers.

Hey everyone can afford another 8 dollars at driver license renewal time, No added cost to the state, and barely 2 cents a day... pony up another 10 bucks a year for your plates, It's only 10 bucks...less than 3 cents a day. You can find 3 cents a day on the sidewalk. Maybe people who don't drive should have to pay it as well. EVERYBODY should share the load. How about a 50 dollar per year residency permit? You live in a house, apartment, mobile home in the state you pay. Certainly, less than a dollar a week is a fair enough price to pay. Maybe tack on a dollar restaurant admission tax... a dollar more on the tab won't hurt and the money can go to the state general fund. The possibilities are endless. A penny here, a nickel there, another one percent won't hurt, it's only one percent. There has to be countless things that need regulations, laws, fines for non compliance, and added revenue opportunities.

More taxes benefit everyone, more regulations Surely something has been overlooked.

So, Is a 100 percent effective tax rate too high? Are regulations covering every aspect of your life too much? If not, what's the limit?

In Gresham thay have a fifty dollar unit "fee" for every rental unit.

Not only should the bikes have a license, but the owners should have licenses to operate them. Some of the stupid things I've seen bikers do and they never get a ticket for doing them. They think they are exempt from the rules of the road and what do they do? They spend all of their energy arguing with the motorists instead of policing their own and openly wonder why all the hostility.

Not too long ago, I had a guy on a bike cut me off at an intersection when I had the light and when I blew the horn, he gave me the bird. Plus the state spent all this money to build bike lanes for them which they don't use half the time. The righties need to complain about THAT handout. We've given them the world and they don't appreciate a drop of it. The free ride needs to end.

So then, assuming this thing does pass (and I don't see how it wouldn't, being an Oregon law involving creating another tax) and I was to ride down into Portland for whatever reason, would I be exempt because I am a Washington resident and we don't have a bike licensing legislation? Would I get dinged for not being registered regardless? ("Have a nice day.")

As I understand, a bill similar to this supposedly was being thrown around Olympia some 30,000,000 years ago (+- 1 1/4 epoch, for margin of error) but failed overwhelmingly. I think here it's mostly up to individual cities to pass ordinances whether or not they want bike riders to be licenced, but it certainly isn't a state law. Here in the Coove, I can tell you with 100% certainty that that isn't the case. (Although knowing Pollard and how in kahutz he seems to be with Portland, it wouldn't surprise me if that old boar is tempted to suggest starting something like that here.....)

Gonna get ugly, I can tell that much right now. Makes me glad I don't live in Oregon any more.......

Proof of WA residency would get you out of a ticket for not being registered, however, if pulled over for another (primary) violation (failure to stop at a marked intersection, e.g.) you could still be cited for that.

I don't think this law has any legs, but that's just my opinion.

Of course, once the new bridge is in, bicycles will have their own toll booth, so the interstate consortium set up to take and distribute toll revenue will get you when you enter the state anyway.

It's cahoots, and it means conspiracy which is an illegality. I doubt Pollard would risk his career with anything risky enough to be considered against the law. If you meant chutzpah, I'd definitely agree with you.

Portland will unfortunately be slowed down in any city needed agreements with outside counties, WA, Vancouver, etc. because we won't have a fully functional city government until Sam The Sham steps down or is recalled, which will take the better part of the year with a new election in Nov. 2009.