Here's something to chew on.
Alderman wants $25 bike registration fee (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-alderman-wants-25-bike-registration-fee-20131023,0,7405166.story)
QuoteA near South Side alderman wants to look at charging bike owners a $25 annual registration fee to help raise revenue for the cash-strapped city.
Making Chicago more "bike friendly" has been a main push by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, and it remains to be seen whether he will give any support to a measure that could be seen as anti-cyclist.
But following Emanuel's budget address, Ald. Pat Dowell, 3rd, said she would suggest the city consider a $25 yearly license for bike owners, who would also be required to take a one hour safety course.
Quotea one hour safety course.
"don't fucking run stop signs", repeated for an hour at high volumes?
Not the
worst idea I've ever heard (and I'm pro-cyclist), but how on earth would this be enforced? Cute little license plates? What if you live in Chicago and own, say, a mountain bike and don't ride it in the city? What if you live in a suburb and happen to cross into Chicago while riding - would they ticket you? Would you need proof of residency?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 23, 2013, 03:38:47 PM
Quotea one hour safety course.
"don't fucking run stop signs", repeated for an hour at high volumes?
I'm expecting a heated "cyclists are vehicles" vs. "cyclists are pedestrians" debate here.
A $25 annual tax on bicycles isn't the way to make it more bike friendly.
That actually makes sense for people who ride bikes on the roads.
You'd enforce it the same way you do with motorcycles who don't have plates.
Quote from: getemngo on October 23, 2013, 03:53:49 PM
but how on earth would this be enforced? Cute little license plates? What if you live in Chicago and own, say, a mountain bike and don't ride it in the city? What if you live in a suburb and happen to cross into Chicago while riding - would they ticket you? Would you need proof of residence
Years ago, that is exactly how they did it. Both Huntington and Morgantown took advantage of the college kids in WV by requiring one to buy a cute little plate. Same size as the novelty plates with first names on them you see from time to time.
The interstate agreements that apply to cars do not apply, so residency is not an issue. If your bike is on the jurisdiction's street, you need a plate. If you keep a mountain bike in storage, you don't.
They eventually did away with it in WV because the college management thought it hurt drawing students. IIRC it was $1/year.
Quote from: sipes23 on October 23, 2013, 05:42:34 PM
A $25 annual tax on bicycles isn't the way to make it more bike friendly.
Cyclists are always stating how they want to "share the road" with drivers. Why is it so unreasonable that they should also share some of the responsibility of using those same roads?
And right now, there is no effective way to track down cyclists who violate traffic laws. Requiring on-street riders to have registration plates, and to have traffic law violations while on a bicycle added towards their driver's history, is perfectly logical.
If Chicago requires license plates for bicycles, the bicyclist could provide additional revenue via Chicago's red light cameras - might be more revenue in this for the city beyond the initial $25.
Minnesota had bicycle registration years ago. It was a color coded sticker that attached to the seat tube (My sister's old bike with a sticker that expired in 1982 is still hanging in the garage.
Quote from: roadman on October 23, 2013, 07:58:21 PM
Quote from: sipes23 on October 23, 2013, 05:42:34 PM
A $25 annual tax on bicycles isn't the way to make it more bike friendly.
Cyclists are always stating how they want to "share the road" with drivers. Why is it so unreasonable that they should also share some of the responsibility of using those same roads?
And right now, there is no effective way to track down cyclists who violate traffic laws. Requiring on-street riders to have registration plates, and to have traffic law violations while on a bicycle added towards their driver's history, is perfectly logical.
Because I feel like enough of a cash cow for the city when I put my car on the road.
Additionally, the alderman floating the idea didn't want to tax cable tv more–the mayor's proposal–because it was already expensive enough and was the only cheap entertainment for poor people in the city. So possibly a dig at the mayor.
This proposal has nothing to do with safety (as most cyclists I see are probably also licensed drivers) and everything to do with bringing in revenue (to the tune of $10 million).
Further reading: http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/23309468-418/bike-riders-should-buy-25-annual-license-alderman-proposes.html
I love the idea. Think of the revenue generated for more bike lanes and bike signals on city streets. BTW, if you aren't aware of it, on Dearborn St in the loop, not only does it have a bike lane with a plastic median but it has protected bike signals. This is a really good idea to have on the major streets that have bike lanes like Clark, Halsted, Irving Park, and La Salle.
Good idea.