A tax on bikes? Hit the road, some cyclists say

[sp_redelectric]

In Portland, Oregon - the city does not receive property tax revenues to fund city streets - it is all gas tax revenue handed down by the state.  Multnomah County spends very little if anything from property tax revenues.

However, in Washington County there is a voter approved tax levy, so that county does use property tax dollars for targeted street projects - where almost always, bike lanes are part of the project.

As for the "conservative/liberal" divide, for Oregon - the liberal counties are Multnomah, Washington, Benton and Lane Counties.  Of course these four counties combined have 44.5% of Oregon's total population.  There are several counties that have almost a 50/50 split - counties like Clackamas, Marion, Polk, Deschutes, Lincoln and Hood River.  And everyone else - definitely Republican.  That would include Yamhill, and Linn Counties in the Willamette Valley, most of the coastal counties, virtually everyone out east (except Deschutes County), everyone south of Eugene...

[vdeane]

I fail to see how a registration fee for bikes is any different than a registration fee for cars.

[kphoger]

Why has nobody mentioned taxing skateboards, roller blades, tricycles, Big Wheels, ice skates, running shoes, jump ropes, chin-up bars, Wii games, tennis racquets, garden hoes, or bottles of personal lubricant?  Doesn't the purchase of these items promote greater emmision of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere just as the purchase of a bicycle does?

Maybe a more reasonable approach would be to legislate a legal minimum psi for bicycle tires (maybe 40 psi for knobbies and 95 psi for smoothies).  After all, underinflation leads to a more difficult ride and therefore more carbon dioxide exhaled.  Plus, overinflation increases the likelihood of a blowout, which then requires the cyclist to take a break from his/her ride until the flat is fixed–which involves one of two things:  (1) walking the bike the rest of the way, at a more normal breathing rate, or (2) fixing the flat at the side of the road, allowing his/her breathing to return to a more normal rate before continuing on.



As for a tax on bikes paying for the roads.....

Just think about how much money is spent repairing pavement that's been damaged by the incessant pounding of bicycle traffic–especially training wheels, which are not pneumatic tires.  Then there's the wintertime plowing, pre-treating, and salting of sidewalks to keep them clear for bicycle traffic (because we all know they don't belong on the street); the installation, regular maintenance, and eventual replacement of bicycle racks at government buildings and parks; and the list goes on!  How have we let this outrage go on for so long?

[Brandon]

^^ Actually, the idea of licensing would be more for enforcement purposes than maintenance.  You could then ticket bicyclists who illegally (and dangerously) run red lights and stop signs easier.  Shoot, you could turn the red light cameras on them with a visible license plate on the bike.

[sdmichael]

Licensing bicyclist... where do you start? If age 18, do you stop all 17 year-old-looking cyclists? Licensing because of enforcement possibilities? Have you driven a car on ANY roadway lately? I'm willing to bet most are licensed. Has that helped? Enforce the existing vehicle code when a cyclists breaks the law. It is that simple. Enforce the existing vehicle code when a motorist passes to close, harasses, or anything else detrimental to the health and safety of the cyclist. Roadways aren't paid for entirely by "gas taxes" in the first place. How much ACTUAL revenue would be generated by licensing? There are still extra costs associated with it after all.

Simply put, guy in WA is an idiot trying to make a name for himself, nothing more.

[kkt]

I fail to see how a registration fee for bikes is any different than a registration fee for cars.

The registration fee on cars pays for a nationwide title system, so a stolen car has some chance of being tracked down.  Is there going to be a nationwide title system for stolen bikes with ownership listed so that it's harder to dispose of a stolen one?  If not, I don't see what bicyclists get out of it.

[Duke87]

It seems logical at first to tax cyclists for bicycle infrastructure the same way motorists are taxed for car infrastructure... until you realize that the capital and maintenance costs of bicycle infrastructure are very minimal compared to those of car infrastructure. Usually the former is part of the latter and thus has practically no marginal cost.

The other thing to realize is that car taxes supporting car infrastructure is a logic usually only in place for state-maintained highways. Local streets used mostly by locals are typically maintained from local property tax revenue. Since bicycling is almost always a fairly local mode of transportation (chances are you never ride your bike too far from home), it isn't in any way odd to have that money also come from property taxes.

And after all, sidewalks are maintained with property taxes and no one is talking about a pedestrian tax. Really, you're just looking at another "creative" scheme to raise tax revenue in a way that might be more politically palatable by imposing it only on a small group of citizens, so most people won't have to pay it and thus have no personal reason to oppose it.

[NE2]

Another thing to realize is that bike infrastructure (especially the cheap-as-fuck repainting of a wide outside lane into a normal width lane with bike lane) usually helps motorists at least as much as it helps cyclists, since the cyclists are no longer slowing down motorists who are continuing straight.

As for more expensive projects like overpasses, consider this: a major highway has a few at-grade intersections through a mid-sized town. Local residents don't have much trouble crossing the highway by car, bike, or foot, due to traffic lights, but the highway frequently gets congested. If you replace the intersections with interchanges, who benefits the most? If you said locals crossing the highway, you're an idiot.

[vdeane]

I fail to see how a registration fee for bikes is any different than a registration fee for cars.

The registration fee on cars pays for a nationwide title system, so a stolen car has some chance of being tracked down.  Is there going to be a nationwide title system for stolen bikes with ownership listed so that it's harder to dispose of a stolen one?  If not, I don't see what bicyclists get out of it.

That would be a good idea, though I always assumed that car registration was just a creative way to tax people.

Another thing to realize is that bike infrastructure (especially the cheap-as-fuck repainting of a wide outside lane into a normal width lane with bike lane) usually helps motorists at least as much as it helps cyclists, since the cyclists are no longer slowing down motorists who are continuing straight.

As for more expensive projects like overpasses, consider this: a major highway has a few at-grade intersections through a mid-sized town. Local residents don't have much trouble crossing the highway by car, bike, or foot, due to traffic lights, but the highway frequently gets congested. If you replace the intersections with interchanges, who benefits the most? If you said locals crossing the highway, you're an idiot.

As a local, I would much prefer to cross at an overpass.  At least then you don't have to wait at a traffic light that's red 90% of the time and usually has a long wait, and it's easier/safer for pedestrians, who no longer have to wait five minutes for the walk cycle.

[Landshark]

Why not?  Bicyclists are increasingly wanting bike lanes.  Shouldn't they have to pay for what they want?

This.  Stop making car drivers pay for bike lanes.   Stop making car users pay for transit.  Let the users of the services and infrastructure pay for it.  It is the most fair and equitable way to do it.

[Landshark]

About the original story:  what is a legislator from Kalama, Washington (I-5 corridor, east of the Cascades, in a state where left-wing orientation supposedly matches rainfall intensity) doing pushing the idea that bicycling is carbon-intense transportation?

He's a Repub troll.

No, he is throwing their same tired talking points back in their faces.   The anti-carbon religious wackos are the trolls.

[J N Winkler]

That [registration for bicycles to enable tracking down in case of theft] would be a good idea, though I always assumed that car registration was just a creative way to tax people.

Registration has been used in the past as a means to fund improvement and extension of the highway system, though it is not particularly well-suited for that purpose and it is generally better to use a mechanism that is more directly related to actual use.  (In Britain the entirety of the tax for road use was put on the vehicle license in 1920, but even then this was widely and correctly seen as a second-best solution compared to charging tax on motor fuel.  The excuse given for not doing so was that, at the time, there were differential tax rates for fuel because of imperial preference, which created the possibility of fraud through mixing chemically similar fuels taxed at different rates.)  Nowadays, I think in most US states--Kansas being one exception--it is the norm to have a registration system where the cost to keep the registration current just barely suffices to pay the administrative overhead associated with running the system.

It is already possible to have bicycles marked inconspicuously so that if they are stolen and later recovered by the police, the owners can be tracked down and reunited with their bicycles.  I have never heard of anyone getting a stolen bicycle back in this way, however.  The reason for this is that police resource for property crimes tends to follow the highest-value items.  Even a used car in poor repair is easily worth several thousands of dollars; in contrast, it is hard to find a bicycle worth that much (an ordinary hybrid bicycle, which is usually what you want for urban commuting and leisure cycling, costs about $200).  There is also a public-interest consideration if the thieves are caught.  Is the public better served by locking up a bicycle thief for a year, at a cost of approximately $30,000 for room, board, and three squares, just to spare a few dozen people the inconvenience of losing $200 each?  It is comparable to (though less extreme than) prosecuting someone for stealing a loaf of bread.

[kkt]

Why not?  Bicyclists are increasingly wanting bike lanes.  Shouldn't they have to pay for what they want?

This.  Stop making car drivers pay for bike lanes.   Stop making car users pay for transit.  Let the users of the services and infrastructure pay for it.  It is the most fair and equitable way to do it.

The streets of New York, San Francisco, and older parts of many other cities were built for pedestrians, horses, bicycles, and perhaps the occasional streetcar.  Should we kick the cars out?

[sdmichael]

The reason for this is that police resource for property crimes tends to follow the highest-value items.  Even a used car in poor repair is easily worth several thousands of dollars; in contrast, it is hard to find a bicycle worth that much (an ordinary hybrid bicycle, which is usually what you want for urban commuting and leisure cycling, costs about $200).  There is also a public-interest consideration if the thieves are caught.  Is the public better served by locking up a bicycle thief for a year, at a cost of approximately $30,000 for room, board, and three squares, just to spare a few dozen people the inconvenience of losing $200 each?  It is comparable to (though less extreme than) prosecuting someone for stealing a loaf of bread.

My bicycle costs $1400. It was my primary transportation for over a year between the point I sold my car and bought my motorcycle. I still ride the bicycle often. I would think that theft is still theft. Or... would you rather your primary mode of transport was stolen and have the police not care? Most bicycles cost far more than $200 and even then that isn't the issue. It isn't closely comparable to stealing a loaf of bread (unless you count the fact that both are involving theft). So yes, it is in the public's interest to prosecute thieves regardless of what is stolen.

As to costs of bicycling infrastructure? I don't have to ride on a bike path nor a road with a bike lane. Bike lanes are involving paint. Freeways involve a bit more. I-405 over Sepulveda Pass has just one lane being added at the cost of over $1B. Are the users paying for that?

[cpzilliacus]

My bicycle costs $1400. It was my primary transportation for over a year between the point I sold my car and bought my motorcycle. I still ride the bicycle often. I would think that theft is still theft. Or... would you rather your primary mode of transport was stolen and have the police not care? Most bicycles cost far more than $200 and even then that isn't the issue. It isn't closely comparable to stealing a loaf of bread (unless you count the fact that both are involving theft). So yes, it is in the public's interest to prosecute thieves regardless of what is stolen.

As to costs of bicycling infrastructure? I don't have to ride on a bike path nor a road with a bike lane. Bike lanes are involving paint. Freeways involve a bit more. I-405 over Sepulveda Pass has just one lane being added at the cost of over $1B. Are the users paying for that?

Here in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C. we are completing a new toll road linking two counties.

Along much of the toll road, a brand-new bike trail was built. 

Taxes levied on bike rides have not paid a dime toward the design, engineering or construction of the trail (since there are none).

[Brandon]

Why not?  Bicyclists are increasingly wanting bike lanes.  Shouldn't they have to pay for what they want?

This.  Stop making car drivers pay for bike lanes.   Stop making car users pay for transit.  Let the users of the services and infrastructure pay for it.  It is the most fair and equitable way to do it.

The streets of New York, San Francisco, and older parts of many other cities were built for pedestrians, horses, bicycles, and perhaps the occasional streetcar.  Should we kick the cars out?

They have in some European cities.  It was tried to an extent along some streets in the US such as State Street in Chicago.  The experiment there was a massive failure.  The only North American cities it might work well in are Downtown Manhattan, New York; Central Boston; and a few other areas.  Most US and Canadian cities were surveyed with fairly wide streets, typically one chain (66 feet) or more in width.  On those streets, cars, trucks, buses, bicycles, and pedestrians can coexist.

To be frank, many (the vast majority except a few critical mass twits), but not all, bicyclists are also car drivers and do pay taxes via sales and property taxes (local roads and street) as well as the motor vehicle fuel taxes (state roads and freeways).  When I speak about bicycle licensing, I'm very narrowly speaking of enforcement as bicycles should be treated as vehicles on the streets (as they should be in the street, to the right or in a bike lane) as with cars and trucks instead of the gray area they currently inhabit between cars and trucks on one end and pedestrians on the other.  But, as for taxes, they pretty much already pay these via other means (there's a sales tax anyway when they bought the bike - I know, I paid one when I bought one).  I want the licensing to weed out the assholes who give the majority of us law-abiding bicyclists a bad name.

[J N Winkler]

My bicycle costs $1400. It was my primary transportation for over a year between the point I sold my car and bought my motorcycle. I still ride the bicycle often. I would think that theft is still theft.

If you are riding on a bicycle costing $1400, then you have spent almost half again as much on bicycle purchases as I did in the more than ten years I was a daily cycle commuter.

Or... would you rather your primary mode of transport was stolen and have the police not care? Most bicycles cost far more than $200 and even then that isn't the issue. It isn't closely comparable to stealing a loaf of bread (unless you count the fact that both are involving theft). So yes, it is in the public's interest to prosecute thieves regardless of what is stolen.

I know whereof I speak.  I owned a total of four bicycles:  two were stolen, and one was destroyed in an accident.  I purchased all four brand-new, and each cost in the neighborhood of $200 (though of course I paid in local currency--generally around £140).  I reported only one of the stolen cycles and gave up after two visits to the police property room to see if it had been recovered--as far as I know, my report of the theft is still on file, but in almost eight years I have never been told the cycle has been recovered.

This was in a country of 50 million where the prison population was around 70,000.  Compare that to the USA, where we have about 1 million prisoners out of a population of 300 million.  Rather lopsided, isn't it?  The way I see it, you can pay to self-insure and just replace a cycle every time it gets stolen (which is what I did), you can throw money out of the window and have an insurance company assume the risk, or you can press to have people sent to prison for petty larceny (which is what theft of a bicycle costing $200 new essentially amounts to) and then pay a fortune in taxes to build prisons and hire judges, prosecutors, police property detectives, etc.  It is a reasonably straightforward cost-benefit calculation and bicycle theft is one of those cases where prevention yields an almost infinitely higher rate of return than cure.

I won't deny that I entertained fantasies of homicide in the event I ever caught up with the person or people who stole my bicycles, but on the other hand I was already making out like a bandit because the purchase price of a bicycle was less than half the £300 I would have paid annually for the next best alternative (a bus pass).  Plus I was in the fortunate position of never having to choose between eating and replacing a stolen bicycle.

As to costs of bicycling infrastructure? I don't have to ride on a bike path nor a road with a bike lane. Bike lanes are involving paint. Freeways involve a bit more. I-405 over Sepulveda Pass has just one lane being added at the cost of over $1B. Are the users paying for that?

It's more than just paint--some cycle tracks are significant investments, requiring considerable planning, design, and engineering effort.  And even the painted-on tracks typically require some engineering analysis to assess their safety and suitability.  Plus, in some congested urban locales, motorists are not unreasonable to complain that cyclist use of the street reduces its utility for them.

In a nutshell, this is what I believe:

*  Cyclists deserve some form of preferential treatment in infrastructure provision.

*  Preferential treatment is in fact provided, though not to nearly the extent that many motorists believe (I am agnostic as to whether the extent of preference is more or less than that which would be socially justified).

*  Calls for greater or heavier enforcement--against Lycra-lout cyclists, against bicycle thieves, etc.--are more often expressions of sublimated frustration rather than good public policy.

As to whether the "users" pay for additional lanes on the 405 over the Sepulveda Pass--yes, absolutely.  It is when it comes to indirect costs that the accounting gets fuzzy.

[NE2]

And even the painted-on tracks typically require some engineering analysis to assess their safety and suitability.

Which rarely actually happens.

[kphoger]

Why not?  Bicyclists are increasingly wanting bike lanes.  Shouldn't they have to pay for what they want?

This.  Stop making car drivers pay for bike lanes.   Stop making car users pay for transit.  Let the users of the services and infrastructure pay for it.  It is the most fair and equitable way to do it.

I don't care about bike lanes.  I've never asked for more bike lanes.  The streets that end up getting bike lanes typically were plenty wide enough for safe cycling without the extra paint anyway.  I'm perfectly content cycling on the streets the way they are.  Why should I have to pay more because someone else wants them?  And, yes, I have a car, so I am already paying in.

When I speak about bicycle licensing, I'm very narrowly speaking of enforcement as bicycles should be treated as vehicles on the streets (as they should be in the street, to the right or in a bike lane) as with cars and trucks instead of the gray area they currently inhabit between cars and trucks on one end and pedestrians on the other

So my five-year-old son should be required to carry a license with him when we ride our bikes to the park or down to the corner store?

[djsinco]

I am not for taxing or licensing bikes or their riders. I do, however, feel it would be a great idea for a bike to have a VIN plate, as well as an etched serial number in multiple places, (including a hidden one or two.)

This would help with the theft rate; as well as seeing more stolen bikes returned to their rightful owners.

[kphoger]

I have a sticker on my bike from registering it with the River Forest, Illinois, police department back in 2000.

A fat lot of good it would do me in 2013 in Wichita, Kansas, I'm sure. 

[djsinco]

I have a sticker on my bike from registering it with the River Forest, Illinois, police department back in 2000.

A fat lot of good it would do me in 2013 in Wichita, Kansas, I'm sure. 

It might do some good if the thief rode it from Wichita to River Forest!

[kphoger]

I have a sticker on my bike from registering it with the River Forest, Illinois, police department back in 2000.

A fat lot of good it would do me in 2013 in Wichita, Kansas, I'm sure. 

It might do some good if the thief rode it from Wichita to River Forest!

Doubt it.  Cf https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8957.msg208595#msg208595

[Brandon]

When I speak about bicycle licensing, I'm very narrowly speaking of enforcement as bicycles should be treated as vehicles on the streets (as they should be in the street, to the right or in a bike lane) as with cars and trucks instead of the gray area they currently inhabit between cars and trucks on one end and pedestrians on the other

So my five-year-old son should be required to carry a license with him when we ride our bikes to the park or down to the corner store?

No, it would be a plate for the bike, not a card for the rider, and it would only be on adult-sized bicycles only.  It's maddening as a driver and a pedestrian when these folks who are adults ride with complete impunity.

[hobsini2]

When I speak about bicycle licensing, I'm very narrowly speaking of enforcement as bicycles should be treated as vehicles on the streets (as they should be in the street, to the right or in a bike lane) as with cars and trucks instead of the gray area they currently inhabit between cars and trucks on one end and pedestrians on the other

So my five-year-old son should be required to carry a license with him when we ride our bikes to the park or down to the corner store?

No, it would be a plate for the bike, not a card for the rider, and it would only be on adult-sized bicycles only.  It's maddening as a driver and a pedestrian when these folks who are adults ride with complete impunity.

This is exactly the same argument I have with my brother who is an avid cyclist and let me preface this by saying that as long as a cyclist obeys the rules of the road, I have no issue with them in sharing the road.

That being said, they should have the bike plated and registered so that when a cyclist decides to be a moron and blow a red light or stop sign, they get the equivalent of a red light ticket, maybe not as much as a car but still a ticket. 

My question though is what to do with a cyclist who does not pay the ticket? I would assume that the majority of cyclists have a driver's license too. Perhaps points against their license for failing to pay?

And think of it this way. Those tickets for cyclists could pay a portion for things such as bike lanes and converting old abandoned railroad lines to bike trails.