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

[Alps]

Okay, here's the point - our "car dollars" (gas tax, license/reg fees, etc.) are going to maintain the PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, not just the concrete from curb to curb. That means car dollars subsidize sidewalks. Why? Because people walking in the street is more dangerous than walking on the sidewalk. That means car dollars subsidize bike lanes. Why? Because telling bikes where to stay and telling cars where to expect the bikes is a lot safer than having bicyclists and cars both try to judge for themselves. Etc., etc., etc., etc. For what it's worth, there are enough other things tugging at your "transportation dollars" (in most states, the revenue is not 100% dedicated to the infrastructure) that you ought to be complaining about that first before complaining about an uneven distribution of transportation dollars.

Finally, as another FWIW, the costs to construct and maintain non-road user rights of way are minimal compared to overall project costs. And the damage done per car, or especially per truck, is more than an entire years' worth of peds and bikes.

[cpzilliacus]

Okay, here's the point - our "car dollars" (gas tax, license/reg fees, etc.) are going to maintain the PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, not just the concrete from curb to curb. That means car dollars subsidize sidewalks. Why? Because people walking in the street is more dangerous than walking on the sidewalk. That means car dollars subsidize bike lanes. Why? Because telling bikes where to stay and telling cars where to expect the bikes is a lot safer than having bicyclists and cars both try to judge for themselves. Etc., etc., etc., etc. For what it's worth, there are enough other things tugging at your "transportation dollars" (in most states, the revenue is not 100% dedicated to the infrastructure) that you ought to be complaining about that first before complaining about an uneven distribution of transportation dollars.

Finally, as another FWIW, the costs to construct and maintain non-road user rights of way are minimal compared to overall project costs. And the damage done per car, or especially per truck, is more than an entire years' worth of peds and bikes.

All of the above is correct.

And I don't mind enhancing the highway network to make it more usable for bikes and pedestrians, and you give some very good reasons for doing so (especially when we can reduce or even eliminate dangerous interaction between motorized traffic and non-motorized traffic).

When the Woodrow Wilson Bridge was reconstructed, a very nice bike and pedestrian trail was built, that now connects U.S. 1 and Va. 400 with National Harbor and Md. 414, and the marginal cost was quite low, even though a new bike and pedestrian overpass had to be built on Rosalie Island over the freeway at the Maryland end of the crossing. Before that trail was opened, I saw more than one person (illegally) walking on the (very narrow) old WWB shoulders to get across the Potomac River from Virginia to Maryland or vice versa.

What I do mind is advocates for the bicycle community making assertions that they are entitled to disproportionately huge shares of the (limited) pot of money for tax-funded (or even toll-funded) highway improvements for reasons of moral superiority. 

That I do not appreciate. 

And asking bike purchasers to make a (modest) tax payment to help fund some of those improvements is not such a bad thing either.

[kphoger]

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.

Why can a police officer not write a traffic ticket to a cyclist as it is?  It's not necessary to have a license plate and registration to get a ticket, or else everyone would just throw away their cars' license plates and registrations.  If the cyclist refuses to pay the ticket, then a warrant is issued.  Isn't that the way things work, or am I missing something?

[hobsini2]

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.

Why can a police officer not write a traffic ticket to a cyclist as it is?  It's not necessary to have a license plate and registration to get a ticket, or else everyone would just throw away their cars' license plates and registrations.  If the cyclist refuses to pay the ticket, then a warrant is issued.  Isn't that the way things work, or am I missing something?

In the case of a red light ticket, the vehicle or in this case bike, would be issued the ticket. Not always is the person driving the car nor the bike going to be the registered owner. For example, I work for a limo company where I do not own any of the vehicles however, I can determine which driver was the one who got the offense by cross referencing it with the schedule.  Also, there is not always going to be a cop to give cyclists a ticket when warranted hence the plates for the bikes so that the cyclist can get a ticket.

[kphoger]

Huh?  I've been pulled over in Illinois for running a red light in my (then) girlfriend's car.  The officer let me go without a ticket, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have written it out to the vehicle if a ticket had been issued.  I've been pulled over in Kansas while driving my (then) fiancée's car, and the ticket had my name on it, not hers.

Unless you're talking about red light cameras.  If so, then I had no idea you were, since Brandon is the only one who's even brought them up on this thread, back on Page 2.

[agentsteel53]

I've been pulled over in a rental car, and let me tell ya, Alamo ain't paying the fine.

[J N Winkler]

I think it is a little precocious to argue that bicyclists should be made to undergo compulsory registration, licensing, and insurance to put them within reach of automated enforcement methods, when there is not even consensus across all fifty states that such methods should be used.

[kphoger]

precocious

If you say it loud enough.  ( anyone? anyone? )

[cpzilliacus]

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.

Why can a police officer not write a traffic ticket to a cyclist as it is?  It's not necessary to have a license plate and registration to get a ticket, or else everyone would just throw away their cars' license plates and registrations.  If the cyclist refuses to pay the ticket, then a warrant is issued.  Isn't that the way things work, or am I missing something?

I have only (personally) seen officers from one police agency ever stop a bicycle rider and issue the person a ticket.  That agency was the U.S. Capitol Police, which was once (and may still be) pretty aggressive at going after bicycle couriers who violate District of Columbia traffic laws near and on  the U.S. Capitol complex. 

There are not as many bike couriers in D.C. as there once were (presumably thanks to FAX machines and the Internet), though I still see them from time to time, and more than a few of them appear to ride their bikes Kamikaze-style (apparently this is a tradition among many D.C. couriers), not paying any attention to pedestrians in marked crosswalks, traffic signals, STOP signs and other traffic control devices.  That certainly makes them fair game for the Capitol Police (and any other police in D.C.).

[kphoger]

I have only (personally) seen officers from one police agency ever stop a bicycle rider and issue the person a ticket.  That agency was the U.S. Capitol Police, which was once (and may still be) pretty aggressive at going after bicycle couriers who violate District of Columbia traffic laws near and on  the U.S. Capitol complex. 

No registration or license plate needed.  Bingo.  If other agencies don't ticket cyclists, it's not because bikes aren't registered, but rather because it's not seen as necessary.

[cpzilliacus]

I have only (personally) seen officers from one police agency ever stop a bicycle rider and issue the person a ticket.  That agency was the U.S. Capitol Police, which was once (and may still be) pretty aggressive at going after bicycle couriers who violate District of Columbia traffic laws near and on  the U.S. Capitol complex. 

No registration or license plate needed.  Bingo.  If other agencies don't ticket cyclists, it's not because bikes aren't registered, but rather because it's not seen as necessary.

Also, the U.S. Capitol Police have plenty of sworn officers, and some of them don't seem to have enough to do.  Police traffic enforcement around the U.S. Capitol is probably as strict as can be found anywhere in D.C. (but I am not including the numerous automated speed and red light cameras all over D.C. when I say that).

[djsinco]

In Colorado, it is not uncommon for bicyclists to receive speeding tickets. There are also stop signs in some cases where a bike path crosses a sidewalk or street, and there is a good ($$$) reason they put those signs there.

[hobsini2]

Huh?  I've been pulled over in Illinois for running a red light in my (then) girlfriend's car.  The officer let me go without a ticket, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have written it out to the vehicle if a ticket had been issued.  I've been pulled over in Kansas while driving my (then) fiancée's car, and the ticket had my name on it, not hers.

Unless you're talking about red light cameras.  If so, then I had no idea you were, since Brandon is the only one who's even brought them up on this thread, back on Page 2.

I am talking about red light cameras. They should be enforced on cyclists too.

[kphoger]

And stop sign cameras too, then, apparently.

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,

I, for one, certainly hope our nation doesn't get to the point of being so authoritarian and anal-retentive that there are cameras set up to catch cyclists not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign.

[NE2]

Given how many motorists bitch about red light cameras enforcing stopping *behind the stop line* before turning on red, methinks we have a case of bigotry.

[hobsini2]

Not at all NE2.  Simply put is if a cyclist wants to have the equality of a motorist, good. That also means that THEY get the same kind of enforcement with those cameras.

[hobsini2]

KP, certainly in urban settings where there is a higher volume of motorists with cyclists, I would want stop sign cameras too.  Believe me. There are a lot of motorists who blow those signs too that need to be ticketed for driving like a moron.

[Duke87]

Cyclists are, technically, subject to all the same rules as cars... but in most cases the rules are simply not enforced upon them.

I don't really mind this, since there is a question of whose safety is or isn't violated - a driver running a red light can kill someone, but a cyclist running a red light isn't going to hurt anyone but himself. It would be blatant revenue enhancement to start ticketing cyclists for running red lights and stop signs. Although ticketing them for riding on the sidewalk wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea, as that is a safety concern.

As for the assertion that cyclists are obnoxious, in my experience that varies with where you are. They are very obnoxious in New York City, but so are drivers and pedestrians, so it's just an extension of the general local attitude.
I recently witnessed someone in Brooklyn on a motorcycle decide to ride on the sidewalk to bypass a traffic jam. People here will do what they gotta do to get around!
On the other hand, the couple cyclists I encountered in Key West were insanely courteous and followed all the rules. Signaled with their hands before turning and everything. Of course, that is also a place where no one speeds and pedestrians always cross only at the corner and only when they have the walk signal, so again, it's the local attitude.

[hobsini2]

I don't really mind this, since there is a question of whose safety is or isn't violated - a driver running a red light can kill someone, but a cyclist running a red light isn't going to hurt anyone but himself. It would be blatant revenue enhancement to start ticketing cyclists for running red lights and stop signs. Although ticketing them for riding on the sidewalk wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea, as that is a safety concern.

A cyclist running a red light or stop sign can cause the driver to slam on their brakes and get rear ended which could cause major injury to the drivers as well. I have seen this happen too many times in Chicago.  It's bad enough that at red light camera intersections the rear end accidents have gone up.  Fortunately, there is a countdown to the light changing on the walk/don't walk signal to tell a driver this if they are paying attention.

[agentsteel53]

I don't really mind this, since there is a question of whose safety is or isn't violated - a driver running a red light can kill someone, but a cyclist running a red light isn't going to hurt anyone but himself.

fine, I want it written into law that if a cyclist runs a red light, and I make no effort whatsoever to avoid him, and I kill him, then I am not given charges of vehicular manslaughter.

[NE2]

As a motorist you have the responsibility of avoiding a crash even if you are not at fault.

[agentsteel53]

As a motorist you have the responsibility of avoiding a crash even if you are not at fault.

thus proving my point.  why should cyclists be allowed to engage in reckless behavior, that causes me to have to take possibly drastic measures to avoid them? 

[NE2]

Why should kids be allowed to chase balls into the street?

[agentsteel53]

Why should kids be allowed to chase balls into the street?

so you're arguing that law-breaking adult cyclists have an identical intellectual development as five-year-olds?

[NE2]

I'm arguing that you should avoid being a dick and hitting them.