Like it or not ..we now live much more in a “user pay” society when it comes to roads/transportation. Not 100 per cent by any means, but certainly well on the rise.
Witness the Golden Ears Bridge, the future Port Mann, increased parking rates, taxes upon taxes on gasoline etc etc.
Yet there is one group that is making louder and increased demands for recognition, facilities and rights .. yet, pay not a penny directly to support the costs of ANYTHING they seek: bicycle riders.
This weekend a 24-km uninterupted cycling path from Vancouver to New Westminster will be be officially be opened. Cost: $25 Million. (Pedestrians can use it too, but I doubt too many will use more than just relatively short parts of it.)
The Burrard Brdige will also later this month dedicate a full traffic lane AND a sidewalk just for bicyclists. Cost for the 3-month trial: $1.5 Million.
And who knows how much municipalities spend on dedicating bike lanes on certain streets … painting the lines for them, installing all the signs: no doubt, millions of dollars more.
Don’t forget the cost and maintenance of all those bicyclist-activated traffic lights installed along specifically designated bike routes throughout the Lower Mainland. Millions more $$$, I’m sure.
And yet bicyclists directly contribute ZERO to support their demands. Why shouldn’t they be annually licensed, and pay a fee, just like cars, trucks motorcycles and buses??
This would not only raise much needed $$$ for roads and routes they use. And it would also make it easier for policec to check, track and return stolen bicycles, if licences and bike registration numbers were recorded just like those of vehicles.
And it would also legitimize bicyclists as deserving street users (not just freeloaders) contributing their share to paving, maintenance, street lights and traffic controls.
Not to mention making it easier for police to stop and ticket those who drive the wrong way on streets, ride right through stop signs and red lights, cycle up on the sidewalks or even against traffic flow in crosswalks etc. without ANY concern for motorists or pedestrians.
Bicycling to work, to play, or wherever practical should be encouraged. BUT along with rights come responsbilities … and paying your fair share.
So among the several ways at its disposal for raising much needed cash for our transportation services, Translink should END the bicyclists free ride.
Harv Oberfeld
58 responses so far ↓
1 Len B // Jun 24, 2009 at 11:45 pm
I agree completely. It’s time they are licensed and insured like any vehicle on the road.
A short while ago my wife was hit by a cyclist when they ran into her passenger side mirror, while she was sitting still at a red light. Luckily the mirror snapped back as it should, preventing any real damage from occurring.
If damage had occurred, I doubt very much we could have done anything more than try and get the persons information to possibly make a claim against their house insurance, and/or take them to small claims court for reimbursement.
What horse crap. Every bike should be required to have a visable licence plate and they should be required to be insured so when they do cause damage there is proper recourse for those effected.
Oh, and I didn’t mention that my wife was the one verbally abused by the cyclist – like as if it was her fault.
Enoughs enough, if the cyclist lobby wants equal space on the roads, they need to start paying like the rest of us.
2 brian // Jun 25, 2009 at 12:10 am
when you and I were young Mr Oberfeld…WE had to pay for a licence to attached to the bike!
Took a free ride over the Golden Ears today…heading north, followed the signs pointing to #7 West…ended up on a country road heading east…with a dozen others in front and behind me.
(Response: Yes, we did, paid for the licence, had no special lanes anywhere … and with licence/registrations recorded, few were stolen. We didn’t even lock them unless going in somewhere for a long time. Now people spend $1,000 for a bike or more ..but want everything else free. h.o. )
3 Richard // Jun 25, 2009 at 12:55 am
Well, Harvey, you didn’t post my last comment on this so I will try again.
In cities, roads are pay for mostly through property taxes, which everyone, including cyclists pay. Ironically, it is drivers that are freeloading by taking advantage of free parking on most residential streets throughout the city.
Considering that for the last hundred years, very little was spent on cycling, cyclists for all these years did not even get their fair share of improvements based on the property taxes that they did pay. Now it is only fair that more be spent in order to catch up.
Regarding some type of licensing fee. It is rather surprising that you are supporting more regulation and creating a government beaurocracy. I suspect it might even cost more to collect a cycling fee than would be collected. As well, around 60% of the population owns a bike so this would really almost be a tax on everyone. For the people that just ride a bike around the Seawall with their family once or twice a year, this would be a large expense.
The other thing to understand is that it is the role of government to protect people from other people. Dangerous drivers are not not only risking there only lives but the lives of other drivers, peds and cyclists. That is why things like cars need to be licensed and regulated.
Cyclists rarely injure others, just themselves. What would you propose next? Licensing skiers, snowboarders, inline skaters, swimmers? Seems like you want to create a real nanny state.
Building cycling paths also encourages people to exercise which reduces health care costs for everyone while driving makes people unfit and increases health care costs.
I get it that some people for whatever reason find some cyclists annoying. Just don’t judge everyone on a bike by the few that break the rules. It is likely the same people who act irresponsible on bikes are the same people who drive poorly. Just be glad that these people are on bikes where they are mostly a danger to themselves rather than in a car endangering other people.
We have many huge problems in the world. We cannot afford to get distracted by things that are just annoying. Lets work on finding solutions to big problems.
(Response: Hmm ..Dont see any other response from you on the blog file. Sometimes they get sidetracked by Spam filter. As for me I’m happy to publish them all … as long as they’re clean, legal and on the topic being discussed. h.o.)
4 Gary E // Jun 25, 2009 at 1:09 am
Spot on Harvey. And I’m not sure where you and Frosty are from but yes, in BC we had Bicycle Licenses. When I was a kid, delivering the Sun, Province, and the Star Weekly(all at the same time) we needed them. And I’m only a couple of years older than you guys.fter a couple of runins with some arrogant fools on bikes I tried to have the licenses brought back. It fell on deaf ears.
I don’t know whatever happened to that system but I do remember the tag was $5. And a little more than 10 years later I was only paying $25 per year on my 55 De Soto.
(Response: Geez ..the Star Weekly. I once wrote an article that was published in that! Bike licences used to be widespread ..seems to me there’s more reasons now than before to do that. h.o.)
5 Rucker // Jun 25, 2009 at 3:30 am
Well…I guess if this makes sense then we also need to start charging a toll for people to walk down the sidewalk. Gotta go after those freeloading pedestrians.
What makes the most sense is a weight based toll as those travelers create the most wear. So charge drivers, cyclists and pedestrians by weight. Of course that means Mr. Oberfeld would be forking over hefty fees.
(Response: Please read my response to Greg. h.o.)
6 JC // Jun 25, 2009 at 3:55 am
What about all those pedestrians and their expensive just for pedestrian sidewalks? Or the countless crosswalk markings and the pedestrian-activated traffic lights? Shouldn’t we license these users as well?
I think user pay is generally a good solution to the rising costs of some things, but this is just ridiculous. In your logic we should also have toll booths at parks. Want to sit on a bench in the city? That will be $1.00 please.
What about the hidden costs of our automobile obsession? The environmental damage to our air and our water? For too long automobiles have had the free ride, heavily subsidized by all the other members of society whether these users drive or not. I’m a little tired of hearing this erroneous myth of cyclists getting “a free ride”.
This report has a lot of good information in it, if you’re interested in investigating this issue further than the limited scope here in your post:
Whose Roads? Defining Bicyclists’ and Pedestrians’ Right to Use Public Roadways
http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf
(Response: The problem with pedestrians is where to pin the plate! h.o.)
7 Greg T // Jun 25, 2009 at 4:07 am
One lo0k at Harv and you can see why he’s jealous of cyclists. Perhaps if he got out of his car and cycled a little he might have a better understanding of cycling issues rather than this knee-jerk column
(Response: The refuge of people incapable of intelligent discussion/debate is always personal insults. We really must pity people like Greg … not be angry with them. h.o.)
8 Alexwarrior // Jun 25, 2009 at 4:12 am
And yet bicyclists directly contribute ZERO to support their demands. Why shouldn’t they be annually licensed, and pay a fee, just like cars, trucks motorcycles and buses??
Vehicle registration and licensing doesn’t pay for infrastructure, it pays for the system to track vehicles and driver licensing. Infrastructure is paid from the general revenue generated from taxes, which everyone in the province pays.
(Response: Do bicyclists not drive on pavement? Isn’t there a cost to setting up bike lanes, doing all the signs etc. Why shouldn’t they contribute to the cost? There should be no free ride … and they should be HAPPY to contribute. h.o.)
9 agf // Jun 25, 2009 at 5:29 am
What is it about: Cyclists pay property taxes, sales taxes, liquor taxes, provincial and federal taxes, that you don’t understand? There’s no tax exemption just because we wear a helmet…
As a cyclist, I’m more than happy to pay my share, and even more, but sadly I don’t feel I’ve been getting my money’s worth for my >30 tax paying years. I find it very petty that the author of this blog would make such a big issue over a (relatively) small amount finally being dedicated to some cycling infrastructure…
Why don’t you get out and ride it and see if we all got our money’s worth?
(Response: You’re right. Bicyclists do pay property taxes, sales taxes etc. But so do motorists. And yet they pay licence fees too (high fuel taxes as well) so what’s not fair about having EVERYONE who uses the roads to pay directly towards building and maintaining them. Why not? Especially if they are asking for and getting dedicated lanes and routes. h.o.)
10 agf // Jun 25, 2009 at 6:03 am
I guess my response to h.o. is to request him to “do the math…”
I think you’ll find that driving and driving infrastructure is much more expensive than you can imagine. And don’t forget to factor in the $billions we give to the auto companies in direct and indirect subsidies, and now bailouts. Cyclists pay for those too…
There is absolutely no comparison between the costs of auto infrastructure to the costs of cycling infrastructure.
The point has already been made that there is a significant deficit of investment in cycling infrastructure, ever since the roads started to plug up with cars making it unsafe/uncomfortable for cyclists (who had been successfully sharing and paying for the roads up till then). I think cyclists are owed a few more CVGs… perhaps at that point I’d be happy to get my cheque book out to help pay for more…
11 Gary L. // Jun 25, 2009 at 6:04 am
“And yet bicyclists directly contribute ZERO to support their demands”. They are not the only groups in our modern day Society that make demands while providing no support.
We are at a point in History where “Victimhood” is something to aspire to.
Like we haven’t seen it coming……….
12 air breather // Jun 25, 2009 at 6:23 am
Wait a minute don’t we have a little issue here called climate change? I’ve just read that climate change caused 315,00 deaths last year. And one of the main causes is cars. As a cyclists – I pay far more than I should to allow vehicle drivers to continue to drive on our roads and requiring huge amounts of money to repair the road damage they’ve caused. Would you require a kid who rides to the local store to pick up some milk for his mom – to have a licence? Don’t be absurd. Like the helmet by law – it would be completely unenforceable. In order to save our planet for our children – we should be providing every encouragement to getting people out of their cars. Car drivers don’t pay anywhere near enough to drive their vehicles. The anger of car drivers are simply a symptom of addicts realizing that their fix is being taken away from them. I’m sorry folks – but you’d better get used to it. You cannot continue with this life destroying behaviour.
13 DMJ // Jun 25, 2009 at 6:24 am
Right on. The cycling lobby is the most molly coddled group around. This vastly overrated mob think that somehow they are the ‘chosen ones’ and even they seem to be immune from the laws of the road.
Of course they should pay fees or licenses because they use the road.
Far too much money has been spent on the cycling community, but of course they have political muscle.
14 ArnoS // Jun 25, 2009 at 6:51 am
The Victoria Transportation Policy Institute has reseached this very topic and have concluded that for the roads that they commonly use (Municipal roads), cyclists overpay for these roads while motorists underpay. So motorists should thank cyclists for subsidizing their roadways!
As was previously mentioned, pedestrians have beautiful, safe, segregated facilities (we call them sidewalks) and one could argue that they don’t pay for these. Motorists have roadways. However cyclists have very few facilities dedicated to cycling only. So motorists should be happy to help pay for these.
15 A. G. Tsakumis // Jun 25, 2009 at 7:41 am
ABSOLUTELY HARV! Hallelujah!
But the cycling-fascists own Silly Hall, for now.
16 Norman Farrell // Jun 25, 2009 at 8:09 am
I think narcissistic Lycra commandos should pay heavy sin taxes because their grandiose superiority and histrionic righteousness is as intoxicating to them as a magnum of good pinot noir would be to me and the chubby wine drinkers with whom I hang out.
Good subject though Harv. It gave some new commenters a place to deposit their wrath. Do you wonder if they had to remove the Pearl Izumi Elite Gel Vent FF gloves to tap out the messages?
17 Brad // Jun 25, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Harvey, Harvey, Harvey. I’m so disappointed in you. You should know that good reporter checks his facts before placing pen to paper. If he doesn’t, he risks making a fool of himself. Looks like you’re wearing the fool’s cap now.
(Response: Brad, Brad, Brad … intersting how you do NOT point out a single point in my essay that is FACTUALLY incorrect. h.o.)
18 Thighs of steel // Jun 25, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Let’s also license skateboarders, rollerbladers, and pedestrians! We can set up a whole bureaucracy where authorities can stop anybody for their papers! BC will truly be the Best Place on Earth.
Last time I checked, cycling was part of the solution to climate change and traffic congestion. Cyclists pay taxes which fund the infrastructure on which they ride. Share the road!
(Response: I don’t mind sharing .. as long as bicyclists pay a share of the costs of things THEY demand. h.o.)
19 Gary L. // Jun 25, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Er, lets do a quick review. The climate has been changing for what, a million years? Isn’t it just a wee bit pretentious of us to believe that if I jump on my bicycle that this change will come to a halt?
20 Brad // Jun 25, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Harvey, Harvey, Harvey. Is it not painfully obvious to you by now that by paying their taxes, cyclists pay for the roads? I though someone as well versed in Government mechanisms as you, it needent be mentioned. Wasted space. The point is, you’ve made an error. Now step up and admit you’ve made a mistake.
(Resonse: Brad, Brad, Brad, everyone pays property taxes etc ..but NO ONE says that because they do, motorists, motorcyclists, truckers, or even buses should not pay licence fees, fuel taxes etc. What makes bicyclists so special that they should have dedicated lanes, routes, traffic light signal buttons, and all kinds of signage to direct/help them …but not pay a cent. h.o.)
21 david p // Jun 25, 2009 at 3:53 pm
What an incredibly short-sighted, regressive load of bollocks, Harv.
Cyclists already pay more than they consume in the way of road resources: their property taxes are as high as those of car drivers, but they don’t require full-width roads, don’t damage the roads, don’t pollute the air, endless etcetera.
Further, licensing cyclists would set up another expensive layer of bs bureaucracy, essentially the last thing we need in this province. And our cops hardly need to spend more time on make-work ticketing instead of dealing with Vancouver’s dire drug violence problems.
Really, this is one of the dumber ideas you’ve ever proposed, poorly thought-through and solving no problems that actually exist. Poor form, Harv, poor form indeed.
22 Ryan G // Jun 25, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Harvey,
I don’t understand a lot of your responses to above posts. Licensing fees for motor vehicles don’t pay for the lanes they use. The lanes they use in the city are paid for in other taxes that everyone pays. So why shouldn’t everyone, including bicycles, have access to those lanes?
Adding licensing fees does not mean bicyclists are paying for the lane they use. They already are.
Furthermore, bicycles do far less damage to the pavement than motor vehicles, yet bicyclists pay the same taxes to maintain the roads as motorists. Who is subsidizing whose use here?
It seems like you are dodging this issue in your original article by using weasel words saying cyclists do not contribute “directly” to road maintenance. Well, in that case, neither do motorists.
(Response: If everyone pays for road construction and use through property and other taxes, why are people who drive cars, motorcycles, trucks, buses singled out for annual licencing and drivers licences on top of that? And that money goes into provincial coffers ..with at least part of it returned to road construction and maintenance. It’s all part of a user pay philosophy. So why shouldn’t bicyclists pay just as motorists do? h.o.)
23 A Dave // Jun 25, 2009 at 5:13 pm
I, too, recall the days of bike licensing, and I don’t remember it being at all onerous or expensive (though I was a kid, sooo…). It was much like getting a dog license or a fishing license — no big deal. I’m not sure it would put much of a dent in infrastructure costs, but it would at least make bike riders more accountable if they can be easily identified — there are enough self-righteous jerks out there breaking the by-laws (and verbally abusing people who call them on it) to warrant this. For this reason alone it would be worth it.
Also, every year my son’s school does a bike safety course for a week. It would be easy enough to have school kids get an annual license as part of these programs.
If they grow up having to this, it just becomes routine, and then you won’t have a whole generation of goofballs who feel entitled to a free ride and claim to be morally superior, like many of the commentators above who seem to think that resorting to nastiness and name calling will somehow win people over to their side.
(Response. Exactly! Really good points. h.o.)
24 Brad // Jun 25, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Now Harvey, what you’re doing now is spreading ignorant misinformation or falsehoods.
Travel on public roads that are built for the publics good on public land are built with the publics money.
Your claim was (and I’m giving you an out here – it’s possible you may not have known the facts on the topic) bicycle riders pay not a penny directly to support the costs of ANYTHING they seek.
We’re not talking about licensing or registration or an opinion that cyclists should pay more. You wrote cyclists do not pay for the support costs of anything they seek. This is factually incorrect.
Cyclists have long had established rights to the road and in fact were instrumental in paving the roads and establishing right of way rules on those roads, but if the question is what makes cyclists so special that they should have dedicated lanes, routes, traffic light signal buttons, and all kinds of signage to direct/help them, I guess I could offer the opinion that they do so and receive these items because it’s in the publics interest to grant these.
A cyclist eases traffic congestion, clears the air and lowers health care costs (both in trauma and ongoing care expenses) for the public.
Cycling is a positive and should be encouraged but this is besides the point. Cyclists pay for the roads they use. To report otherwise is just bad journalism.
(Response: Good journalists are not afraid to question sacred cliches. ALL citizens pay for roads etc through property and income taxes etc. Right. BUT under our currently growing user pay philosophy specific road, bridge, parking service users are being required to pay extra for what they use. Why should bicyclists be exempt?? If they paid something directly, through licences, annual fees just like the rest of those who use the roads, they might be respected a little more by those they demand to share the road with more and more. h.o.)
25 Richard // Jun 25, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Cyclists do pay fuel taxes. The GST on the muffins, cookies and other food they buy for fuel.
(Response: But what about the cost of dealing with the pollution of all their exhaust! LOL!)
26 AJ // Jun 25, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Good grief you seem to have hit a nerve with the Left Wing Chicken Farmers and now the Cyclists! Well done Harv!
(Response: I love blogging ..especially when it gets a much needed debate going. h.o. )
27 spartikus // Jun 25, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Let’s also license skateboarders, rollerbladers, and pedestrians! We can set up a whole bureaucracy where authorities can stop anybody for their papers! BC will truly be the Best Place on Earth.
Just tattoo everyone with a barcode. The cops can scan you as you walk to the park.
28 Luis G // Jun 25, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Google “BC cyclists pay fair share roadway costs.” You will find that this topic has been thoroughly discussed by various groups and journalists in the recent past. Except for a few ranters armed with no facts, every relevant hit on the first page disagrees with you, and several provide supporting data and references.
Here is a tip, Harvey: Google the title of your pending blog entry to avoid relegation as a baseless ranter.
(Response: Funny how people who agree with me do so on the points I’ve made but so many of those who disagree can come up with no better than name calling or personal criticism. So I figure i must be right!
h.o.)
29 Stan F // Jun 25, 2009 at 9:29 pm
The autocentric world is changing. The former transportation engineer in West Palm Florida has put forth a simple truth-”In West Palm, people were just fed up with the way things were, and sometimes, that’s what it takes,” says Lockwood, the town’s former transportation manager. “What we really need is a complete paradigm shift in traffic engineering and city planning to break away from the conventional ideas that have got us in this mess.
30 genuine // Jun 25, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Cyclists you guy’s wanna share the road ? Pay for it ,never mind property tax that goes to schools and sidewalks water garbage collection hospitals etc we pay through the nose to drive and we also employ mechanics air care and service station employee’s and a whole range of other services.Where do you guy’s get off wanting a free ride the even provide bike racks payed for by us! YOU wanna use the road and be fit and trim go ahead just pay for it and as for c02 emit ions you’ve put enough of them on this post! YOU WANNA PLAY THEREFORE YOU MUST PAY! and put your monies where your mouth is!
31 Richard // Jun 25, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Harvey, to answer your question, ” why are people who drive cars, motorcycles, trucks, buses singled out for annual licencing and drivers licences.” Cars, motorcycles, trucks and buses buses are deadly, dangerous devices that kill millions of people around the world every year. People who drive need to be skilled and regulated for the protection of other drivers, children, pedestrians and cyclists. Cyclists, on the other hand, are mostly only a danger to themselves. I am really surprised you are supporting big government, more regulation and the creation of a nanny state.
Licensing has nothing to do with the funding of roads.
(Response: I disagree. Without vehicles, our society would still be in the relatively dartk ages, living isolated lives iwthout the comfort of so many goods that come from a distance and enrich the lives of more than just the very wealthy who would otherwise be the only ones who could afford them. I’m no fan of big bueaucracies but maybe if we licensed and recorded the registrations of bikes, far fewer would be stolen …and those who drive their bikes reklessly, on sidewalks, against traffic, through stop lights and stop signs and even on sidewalks could even be reported prosecuted. h.o.)
32 Brad // Jun 25, 2009 at 11:15 pm
It’s good to see you do acknowledge that cyclists do pay for roads. So now it is clearer that what you’re saying is different than what you wrote.
Why should cyclists be exempt from paying more for the roads than they do? Here’s an opinion based on a fact. People riding bicycles lower the costs of transportation and health care for everyone.
When the numbers get crunched, it has been shown that for every dollar spent on cycling infrastructure, five dollars are saved in other government sevices.
Cyclists who ride their bikes to work make up 2% of traffic yet only 1% of the traffic infrastructure budget is allocated to cycling facilities.
Far more cyclists ride their bikes for recreation and fitness so one could argue that cycling facilities are grossly underfunded by the government.
Governments encourage productive behavior. They shouldn’t try to kill a goose that lays a golden egg.
33 Alexwarrior // Jun 26, 2009 at 1:36 am
Imagine the reputation Vancouver would get if it actually did this. Portland, Montreal, Copenhagen, etc, would all get a real good laugh at us.
(Response: Glad you brought that up. Actually Regina requires bicycle licences. Too small? How about Shanghai and Beijing? Too Commie? Well, how about Mikwaukee? Madison, Wisconsin? Salt Lake City? And Santa Monica .. just to name a few. h.o.)
34 Brad // Jun 26, 2009 at 3:02 am
Harvey, if your argument is that cyclists should pay into the public purse at a rate that is greater than they do at present, you should justify this request.
You’ve acknowledged cyclists pay for the roads they use and it seems that your arguments for licensing or registration have little to do with licensing and registration (frankly, I’m a little surprised that you haven’t argued that cyclists should pay for insurance too), and more to do with having cyclists pay more simply because motorists are being asked to pay more to drive on new facilities.
The fact is, road space is a finite resource and we have to make more efficient use of it. Excessive motoring is wasteful and cycling is quite possibly the most efficient method of transportation available.
A bike lane or bikeway moves a bicycle out of the way of motor vehicles. I should think motorists would appreciate this. If someone rides a bike, it removes a car from the road, lowers demand for fuel and is entirely pollution free.
The largest expenditure of government is health care and cycling inherently improves the health of the riders of bicycles. Cyclists subsidize the costs of those who do not take care of themselves as they should because they do take care of themselves by cycling.
Your blog reads like someone who just doesn’t understand how much cycling contributes to society and is upset that cyclists “seem” to get an unfair break.
I’d like to hear a justification of your request that is a little more substantial than, “I have to pay, therefore – you – have to pay”
This comes off as a little immature.
(Response: We ALL pay taxes … but havent you noticed that when it comes to roads etc thse days USERS pay extra… and that should apply to bicyclists, especially as they demand more and more lanes, routes and services. h..o)
35 Richard // Jun 26, 2009 at 7:38 am
Harvey, it is time to get real. We don’t seem to have the police resources to stop dangerous activities such as bad driving and gangs that are actually killing innocent people. Before focusing precious resources on bad cycling, which is mainly a danger to those cycling irresponsibly, don’t you think we should address real dangers first.
To me, it would make sense to first focus on reducing injuries and deaths to others caused by bad driving driving to the same level as that caused by bad cycling. Once we have done that, then by all means crack down on bad cycling. Until then, it just seems like a poor use of enforcement resources.
Lets use some common sense cost benefit analysis here and make sure taxpayers get the biggest bang for their buck. Lets focus on saving lives.
By the way, I wasn’t arguing against the use of vehicles, I was merely pointing out the fact that their use kills a lot of people and that is why they need to be regulated.
(Response: Of course preventing injuries etc and going after serious crime should be the priorities. But the truth is (like it or not!) if bicyclists want to be taken seriously as real road sharers ..they’d better ante up direct bucks, through licensing, or most others on the road will never see them as equals. h.o.)
36 Brad // Jun 26, 2009 at 3:31 pm
If it is true that cyclists will be taken seriously as real, equal road users via licensing, how would you explain the attitude towards bicycle couriers?
Bike messengers have to pay to take a road test they have to pass in order to be licensed as well as have to display a license plate.
Has this been an effective measure to get bicycle messengers accepted as legitimate, equal users of the road? Does this process do anything to make a bike courier more responsible?
(Response: I have NO problem with bike couriers per se: they can be quicker than vehicle couriers in the downtown and more environmentally friendly etc. BUT they lose popularity when they cut across traffic lanes without so much as a signal, ride through crosswalks, ignore traffic lights, drive along sidewalks and cut in front of pedestrians. h.o.)
37 Brad // Jun 26, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Sorry for the multiple posts. My ISP must be having a glitch.
If your point that couriers breaking traffic law is the point at which these licensed cyclists lose popularity (as I would imagine the majority of people feel), my argument would be that licensing has very little to do with cyclists either following traffic law or getting respect from other road users.
The fact is, cyclists are, have been and will continue to be legitimate users of the road system and it seems that if motorists are upset because cycling doesn’t have the same costs as driving does a legitimate response is not that cyclists should simply pay what motorists do. It seems a better response would be that motorists should appreciate the positive benefits cyclists are providing motorists, such as more space on the road, cleaner air and lower health care costs.
38 CMK // Jun 26, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Harv,
You gotta be kidding me, I am a bike rider, a walkr and a car driver. We all pay for this infrastructure. I pay Translink fees just like everyone else on my property taxes, on the gasoline I buy for my other mode of transport and on my electric bill. Asphalt transport has been heavily subsidized by every level of government for the last 50 years. The alternative infrastructure now being provided for cycling, such as the Central Valley Greenway, allows people like me to get off the road so car drivers like you still have room to move.
(Response: EVERYONE pays property taxes, income taxes etc. BUT the only road users who do NOT pay DIRECT extra annual “user fees” for that privilege are bicyclists ..even though they keep demanding more and more services and even private lanes on those roads/bridges. h.o.)
39 Brad // Jun 26, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Harv, can you not admit that Translinks statement that the cycling infrastructure budget allocation is half the size of transportational cycling use?
Can you not admit that a person on a bicycle removes that same person from driving on the road?
Does this not provide capacity to the road system by removing motor vehicles from the road?
What about the costs of maintaining the roads? Is it your assertion that bicycles impact wear on the road at the same rate as motor vehicles?
Why should a cyclist pay more for the use of roads, if a cyclist lowers the costs of the road system?
(Response: I have never said bicyclists should pay the same licence fees as morotists. I have only said they should pay SOMETHING DIRECTLY for road use/lane privileges ..end the free ride. h.o.)
40 Terry L // Jun 26, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Here’s the data, from the above-mentioned Victoria Transport Policy Institute research paper (first two paragraphs are my own):
The costs associated with building and maintaining highways is borne mostly by those who use the highways, that is, by the motorists and truckers. The government got that right, and balances the mixture of user fees and tax allocations fairly and properly for highways. And their usage patterns reflect that: you don’t find many bicycles on the highway.
Within the cities, though, it’s a different story. There, the costs for local roadways are derived mainly from local taxes, with few user fees applied. These costs are skewed to favour motorized transport. The table below shows the costs imposed through taxes on two fictional users, Mike Motorist and Frances Footpower.
Local Roadway Payments Versus Costs
Mike
Frances
A. Annual local mileage
10,000
3,000
B. Household’s general taxes used for road related services
$300
$300
C. Motorist user fees spent on local road (0.2¢ per mile)
$24
$0
D. Total road system contribution (B + C)
$324
$30
E. Tax payment per mile of travel (B/A)
3.2¢
10¢
F. Roadway costs (cars = 5.6¢/mile, bicycles = 0.2¢/mile)
$560
$48
Net (D – F): Mike underpays by $236, Frances overpays by
$252
Non-drivers pay almost the same as motorists for local roads but impose lower costs. As a result, they tend to overpay their share of roadway costs.
Table Source: Victoria Transport Policy Institute research paper “Defining Bicyclists’ and Pedestrians’ Right to Use Public Roadways” by Todd Litman; http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf
41 harry l // Jun 26, 2009 at 6:08 pm
lets resolve this right now . all new bikes are taxed and insured at point of sale one time only have icbc administer it and over time all bikes will be insured and then a injured person can claim for there injuries
(Response: Some very good ideas ..worth pursuing .. if Translink has the guts to do so. h.o.)
42 Brad // Jun 26, 2009 at 7:20 pm
I think this discussion has crossed the line of reason. It looks the discussion is becoming unreasonable.
That evidence presented showing cyclists do in fact subsidize the motoring public is not enough to quell calls for additional payment from cyclists smacks of extremism.
I’m sorry the motoring public feels cyclists receive unfair advantage, but here’s something to think about. The vast majority of cyclists also drive and are in the same boat as the motoring public. The only difference is that these motorists have chosen to improve the transportation and health systems for their motoring brethren by getting on their bikes rather than complaining that others seem to be getting a better deal than they are getting.
Crying never gets anyone anywhere. I’m sorry such extreme views causes such distress, but it’s not surprising that it does.
43 Norman Farrell // Jun 26, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Maybe it’s strange that we pay taxes to provide public services but, when we access services, we pay user fees. For example, I renewed by driver license and paid $75 for the privilege. I bought a copy of my marriage certificate through the electronic ordering system and paid with a credit card. No human intervention beyond my own effort. Despite that, the fee for a non-certified copy was $27. Those amounts hardly reflect the marginal cost of interacting with electronic data bases.
Long ago, a progressive income tax system was presumed to be the fairest way of paying for essential public services. Under Campbell’s Liberals, the trend toward user pay has accelerated. User fees are regressive; they inflict the most damage on the people least able to pay.
For that reason, I would not impose levies on bike riders, nor on any essential services. Governments should raise revenue through income and consumption taxes, with extra imposts on those things we proscribe, like liquor, carbon, gambling, pot, etc.
HO, if you remove the tongue from your cheek, is unfair or double taxation the real objection?
(Resonse: Well, this one sure has opened the debate!
I just noticed Translink is in dire need of $$ … and noticed at the same time, bicyclists are demanding more and more special lanes, routes, road space. There’s no way the should pay anything close to what morotists pay..but why shouldn’t they pay something? And I’d bet that if bikes had licences tied to their registration numbers, there would be far fewer thefts ..because police would be able to do more than just ask ..Is this your bike? h.o.)
44 mc // Jun 26, 2009 at 7:35 pm
I will ride in the street all the time whether a shoulder or bike lane is available or not. You want me to pay for the road, fine I am going to use the whole damn road. The scowl’s in a box can wait until it’s safe to pass me.
(Response: I agree with you on this. h.o.)
45 Richard // Jun 26, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Some more getting real. What I find pisses off motorists the most is when the road is too narrow for passing and the motorist gets stuck behind the cyclist. The cyclist is doing what is perfectly legal. Licensing won’t change this. What will fix this is creating more bike lanes and paths so there is enough space for motorists and cyclists to safely c0-exist. This is what will solve everyone’s frustration.
In response to my last post, you mentioned that licensing would help stop cyclists from riding on sidewalks and running red lights.
However, If the helmet law is any indication, licensing cyclists will likely instead result in the police wasting their time enforcing licensing instead of stopping cyclists from riding fast on sidewalks and running red lights.
Unfortunately, police seem to focus on enforcing laws that are easy to enforce rather than those which would result in greater improvements to public safety. In the first few months of this year, VPD issued 4,000 tickets for cyclist for no helmets. This was 4% of all traffic tickets while cyclists represent around 4% of traffic. I find it hard to believe that this is the best use of police resources for both enforcement against bad cycling and bad driving.
I can see the police, like they do with helmets, cracking down for a week or two a year on unlicensed cyclists, which, like helmet enforcement, will not be even that effective in increasing compliance while ignoring other, more serious infractions for the rest of the year.
In my mind, the best approach would be to get rid of the helmet law, forget about licensing and instead crackdown on fast sidewalk riding and running red lights.
46 davidp // Jun 27, 2009 at 3:39 pm
“Good journalists are not afraid to question sacred cliches.”
Good journalists also get all the facts before they put words to paper. As has been demonstrated several times in this thread, you failed to get the facts and, indeed, continue to defend your misinformed position.
What is particularly shameful at this point is that you persist in calling your opinion “right,” when it is clearly not.
“I love blogging ..especially when it gets a much needed debate going.”
I suggest you should stick to the title of your blog, “Keeping it Real.” You do not need to get debate going by presenting mistruths and regressive ideas.
(Response: Yes… so regressive that Seattle is RIGHT NOW in the process of studying exactly what I suggest. h.o.)
47 davidp // Jun 28, 2009 at 3:29 pm
” In 2006, voters here [Seattle] decided to pay for a property-tax increase that includes the requirement that, wherever possible, road projects include new bike and pedestrian facilities. Every single resident of Seattle pays this tax, either directly (property owners) or indirectly (renters). You don’t get an exemption if you don’t own a car. ”
“The city of Seattle has approved one of the nation’s most aggressive attempts to raise the popularity of bicycles. The 10-year Bicycle Master Plan calls for 118 miles of new bike lanes and 19 miles of trails, as well as lane markings and signs to create awareness of cycling across the city.”
The only mention I can find on the net of “studying what you suggest” is an op-ed piece by James F. Vesely.
Please provide links that show the City of Seattle is studying what you suggest. I can find none whatsoever.
(Response: Read it here: http://urbanvelo.org/seattle-debates-bicycle-license/ )
48 Brad // Jun 28, 2009 at 6:56 pm
That article really does little to bolster the idea of licensing or registering bicycles Harv. In fact, it does a good job to show it has been tried, hasn’t worked, and not worth the effort to implement such plans.
(Response: I can’t help it if you you refuse to see what you don’t like to see even if it’s right in front of your eyes. I was asked to cite a specific source for my assertion Seattle is looking at bike fees ..so I did …in fact here again is the title of the article: “Seattle Debates Bicycle Licence at Urban Velo.” If you can’t understand that, it’s your problem, not mine. And here’s more… from the Seattle Times. Read it and weep…but don’t deny a discussion is taking place down there.
“Impose license fee on King County cyclists
With governments at all levels hurting for revenues but faced with huge infrastructure bills, Times columnist James F. Vesely argues it’s time to impose a license fee for bicycles. Cyclists have benefitted richly from projects that have blazed trails throughout the Puget Sound but have not had to pony up themselves.
Local government finances are so dire, it is time to consider — and enact — an annual fee on bicyclists.
A $25 annual fee for owning a bike is a natural outgrowth of the enormous amounts of trails, lanes and accommodations the region has made to cyclists. Those funds would be useful for local cities and King County. It would also make cyclists true members of the world of transportation, rather than free riders on the tax rolls.” )
49 Brad // Jun 29, 2009 at 1:05 am
I really don’t think that the issue is that I refuse to see what I don’t want.
You can plainly see that I posted that the article linked does little to bolster the idea of licensing or registering bicycles. I didn’t say that the debate wasn’t taking place.
Public policy is a fluid thing and changes every day. Sometimes the policy is good, sometimes it’s bad. We live with the consequences.
Everyone has the right to their opinions and hopefully, if the policy makers develop a policy of how it may work, and find out that the policy was the wrong move, they can re-visit that policy to either repeal it as they did in Minnesota.
It’s not like politicians haven’t ever made a bad decision based on an attempt to appease a vocal public asking for the wrong moves that will only make things worse for themselves
50 davidp // Jun 29, 2009 at 4:06 pm
That link 404s, Harvey.
Times columnist James F. Vesely also argues that the ultra-wealthy shouldn’t be subject to estate taxes, and other idiotic ideas like that. His name weakens your argument, not strengthens it.
(Response: Bicyclists must have quite a sense of privilege. First they demand references to my assertion that Seattle is looking at bike luicences. Then when I provide them, they denigerate the people there raising the issue. Do you think maybe the bias is yours. I don’t know the man in the specific reference you refer to (what about my other reference?). But he holds a fairly senior position in Seattle’s largest newspaper, so I respect his right to express his point of view… as much as I respect yours … and it doesn’t denigrate from his opinion on bicyclists and their freeloading demands just because I may (or may not
disagree with him on other issues. h.o.)
51 davidp // Jun 29, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Response: I’m not a bicyclist. Haven’t ridden a bike in some twenty years. Don’t have kids on bikes. Don’t plan on biking.
I made a sincere effort to track down the source of your claim that Seattle is looking at double-taxing bicyclists. It is not unreasonable to expect you to provide reference when the search turned up nought.
Your reference provides a “Page not found” error.
You again assert that bicyclists are freeloaders. This is emphatically not true, and I am disappointed you persist in promoting that fallacy when evidence to the contrary has been provided to you.
You’re free to hold opinions based on mistruths, fallacies, and ignorance. Go for it. But you shouldn’t be surprised when knowledgeable people correct you, and you need not be snippy when they do.
You are often right, but in this case your are dead wrong.
Response: Try this http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:mD6JfevaBqEJ:urbanvelo.org/seattle-debates-bicycle-license/+seattle+bicycle+license&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca
If that doesnt work … go to Google and type in Seattle Bicycle License ..it should come up and so should the Seattle Times Comment on the topic.)
52 Brad // Jun 30, 2009 at 2:43 am
It’s clear Harvey’s not looking at this in a forthright manner.
The article he linked showed one successful example of fee payment of cyclists at a university but this is a unique situation that has few of the factors a city has and the examples show from other cities that had a system where it failed.
The idea of charging cyclists a registration fee has been floated by lawmakers in Olympia, but not seriously considered in recent years. The department believes the programs raise little money — if any — beyond what they cost to run. Most cyclists also own a car or multiple cars, so they’re paying license fees and gas taxes.
Toronto went over this 3 times in recent memory and came up with a report that showed it was not effective in any way.
http://www.toronto.ca/budget2005/pdf/wes_translicensingcyc.PDF
Harvey should do the right thing and consider the merits of his idea. I’m sure if he did, he would acknowledge the shortcomings in his idea.
53 davidp // Jun 30, 2009 at 3:58 pm
You did not actually read that article, and the Seattle P.I. article to which it refers, did you, Harvey? It doesn’t support your argument in the least.
There was an idea in there that I would whole-heartedly support: bicyclists who commit traffic violations should be fined as heavily as car drivers.
I don’t really care one way or the other about cyclists being on the road, but by gods they need to obey the traffic laws: it’s the only way us drivers can predict what they’re going to do, so that we can safely avoid them.
(Response: Sure did read them … In fact the Seattle P.I. is not an article: it’s an editorial opinion. Didn’t you read it?
h.o.)
54 davidp // Jul 1, 2009 at 6:12 pm
It appears that pendantics are all that are left to your argument. Article or opinion piece, whatever you wish to call it, the bottom line is that it does not support your argument and, in fact, substantially undermines your argument.
It’s a shame that you are so bull-headed. One would hope that someone who has the public eye, as you do, would be interested in presenting opinions based on facts. Turns out you’re as blindly partisan as the politicians you criticize.
I’m done with this. I can’t imagine why I’d ever care to participate in discussion with you again, when you show no evidence whatsoever of considerate thought.
(Response: No problem. Just contribute $$ to all the bike paths, bike routes, bike lanes, bike signage etc .. like the rest of us who also pay EXTRA to use the roads.
h.o.)
55 Brad // Jul 2, 2009 at 5:10 am
But Harvey, it’s been shown drivers are subsidized by cyclists and even if you do pay something, you’re underpaying for the impact you’re creating.
Cyclists may not pay but that’s because we already overpay and on top of that, everyone knows the best way to encourage productive behavior is to not place barriers in the way of that productive behavior.
Automobiles pollute, promote a sedentary lifestyle and maim people. They should pay for that (along with pay their fair share of what it costs to provide and maintain roads). Think of it as a “sin tax”.
56 davidp // Jul 2, 2009 at 4:10 pm
[bangs head against the wall]
(Response: LOL!! h.o.)
57 Brad // Jul 2, 2009 at 4:24 pm
A reasonable argument can be made that a productive measure would be not to make cyclists pay to use facilities, but to pay cyclists to ride transportationaly.
Cycling is so good for us, the US Governments bailout plan included a provision for employers to pay their employees to ride into work
http://www.sacbee.com/304/story/1305884.html
“Buried deep in the federal Emergency Economic Stabilization Act – the $700 billion Wall Street bailout – is an unexpected boost for the greenest of commuters.
With a tax-code change, beginning in January, companies can give up to $20 a month to workers who pedal to work. It would be tax-free to cycling commuters, and a tax write-off for employers.
Riders would use the subsidy to defray commute costs, such as bike tires or lights, helmets or rental fees for bike lockers at work.”
58 Luis G // Jul 8, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Harvey’s is correct that I (sort of) resorted to name-calling in my previous post (Jun 25, 2009 at 8:57 pm). Shame on me. However I still contend that his article would have been much improved had he addressed some of the arguments and data provided by bike supporters.
Leave a Comment
CAPTCHA Code is needed.