House Bill 3008 Oregon

[summit_ridge]

Here's a local link in regards to this bill http://www.ktvz.com/global/story.asp?s=10004907.  In essence, the state wants to make a mandatory two year bicycle 'registration' fee of $54 for adult bicycle riders in Oregon.  The fee is to supplement the state's coffers for road maintenance.  My question is how many of you have 'mandatory' bike registrations/fees already in place.  While I agree $54 every two years seems excessive (and pretty darn close to what motorvehicles pay for registrations which doesn't seem fair) if I was guaranteed the money would go towards making the state's roads and highways more bicycle friendly by improving bike lanes, crossings, safety areas, striping, etc...I would be more apt to agree with the legislation.  Oh, and I'm a new member here and really have enjoyed the site thus far.

 

[Westinghouse]

Here's a local link in regards to this bill http://www.ktvz.com/global/story.asp?s=10004907.  In essence, the state wants to make a mandatory two year bicycle 'registration' fee of $54 for adult bicycle riders in Oregon.  The fee is to supplement the state's coffers for road maintenance.  My question is how many of you have 'mandatory' bike registrations/fees already in place.  While I agree $54 every two years seems excessive (and pretty darn close to what motorvehicles pay for registrations which doesn't seem fair) if I was guaranteed the money would go towards making the state's roads and highways more bicycle friendly by improving bike lanes, crossings, safety areas, striping, etc...I would be more apt to agree with the legislation.  Oh, and I'm a new member here and really have enjoyed the site thus far.

 

I was just reading that on a google. They tried that a few times in Florida. They were trying to say every bike had to be licensed or something like that. They said the serial number of each bike had to be registered. If I remember correctly, it was pretty much ignored, and it kind of faded away. The fact is in Florida, if you are traveling by bike or getting around on one, you can expect your rights on the road to be violated. That is not what the law says, but that is the way things are. I can see the point on registering serial numbers because bicycles are the most frequently stolen items in the USA.

[mucknort]

My question is how many of you have 'mandatory' bike registrations/fees already in place.

Never even heard of such a thing here in New England (phew). I agree I might feel okay about such a thing if the money was actually targeted toward bicycle concerns, but I doubt that is the case.

[Westinghouse]

I was just reading that on a google. They tried that a few times in Florida. They were trying to say every bike had to be licensed or something like that. They said the serial number of each bike had to be registered. If I remember correctly, it was pretty much ignored, and it kind of faded away. The fact is in Florida, if you are traveling by bike or getting around on one, you can expect your rights on the road to be violated. That is not what the law says, but that is the way things are. The meaning being, if you are routinely being denied equal status on the road, you should not have to go through the same legal requirements as those required for motor vehicles. I can see the point on registering serial numbers because bicycles are the most frequently stolen items in the USA.

A person on a bicycle poses much less of a deterent to collision than another motor vehicle. I know almost nobody would openly admit this, but I think
that lower deterrent value has something to do with the way people on bikes in Florida are regarded. Very often things go according to law, but often it seems like the lesser power, the bicycle, must yield to the greater power, the car or truck, regardless of the law.

It seems to me the government in Oregon is drumming up another law for collecting revenues.

[whittierider]

That's about what my car registration is (although I have to pay it every year, not every two years), and we have ten bikes in this family.  A year ago we had 12.  I'm not totally against bike registration, but the proposed cost is ridiculous.  If you live in Oregon, please contact your state assemblymen.  Imagine what it will do to the bike industry if suddenly people will need to get rid of a lot of bikes, and don't want to buy another; or if a cheap-o bike for a child effectively gets the price increased by anywhere from 30% to 100% in the first two years, and then you have to keep paying registration on it to keep it for your next kid that hasn't grown into it yet.  Four of our bikes aren't getting ridden right now, but we want to keep them for various reasons to keep future possibilities open.  If that registration requirement went into effect in our state, I'd have to fork out $540 just for the first two years.

How about the homeless and the low-wage earners who can't afford it?  Will their bikes be confiscated?  Or will they be arrested because they can't pay the $25 fine?  Whenever someone wants to implement a new tax for a worthy cause, I point out that the tax percentage now is much higher in all states than it was decades ago when there was virtually no national debt and there was no trouble keeping the fire stations, libraries, and schools operating, etc., and that there's more than enough money in the system if they'd just cut the administrative waste and inefficiency.  Are they going to put a tax on going for a walk next, so they can pay for sidewalks?  Or maybe require registration of shoes?  How many can you wear at once?  Does more shoes mean you'll use the sidewalks more?  I find this pretty upsetting, and I don't even live in Oregon.  There should at least be a cap so the $54 covers all the bikes in one household.

Most cyclists pay registration fees by being vehicle owners too.  Vehicles damage the roads and incur higher road-maintenance costs.  Bikes don't.  Would the buraucrats prefer that we get off our bikes and put the miles on our vehcles instead?  Besides, the "bike facilities" they probably want to fund are mostly the ones that are worthless for real cyclists, like the beach and park trails that are covered with toddlers, skaters, and stollers.  We live by a 38-mile-long class-1 paved trail that is not that way.  It runs along the river, but they needed it for maintenance vehicles for the dams and other equipment along the river anyway, so it doesn't really cost any extra to let cyclists ride on it.  Actually, if they would install more trails going across between rivers, similar to our freeway network, more people would get out of their cars and ride the trails, which would mean that freeway-widening projects could be delayed.  IOW, cyclists  reduce the costs of infrastructure.  We don't increase it.  Realistically, I think all this bill will do is reduce the number of people getting some much-needed exercise.  This bill is not good for Oregon or for other states that might follow.

Rep. Krieger seems to have a chip on his shoulder from cyclists not stopping at stop signs and lights.  Please, everyone, don't give people more fuel to hate us.  Obey the laws.  But I also have to say Krieger is wrong about the intended us of the roads.  It was the League of American Bicyclists that originally pushed for paved roads a hundred years ago; and now that motorists have the paved roads, they want us off the roads (or at least damaging them in a car instead of riding a bike).  It makes no sense.

Oregonians, you can contact your state rep.s and senators at http://www.leg.state.or.us/house/ and http://www.leg.state.or.us/senate/

[johnsondasw]

Washington does not have a license fee like this, but the city of Seattle keeps talking about it.  I agree with the previous writer that biking helps the whole transportation system in several ways, not to mention reducing the load on the health care system by keeping us healthier.  This country should do everything in its power to make using bikes more attractive and get out of out archaic hangup on the motor vehicle.  And $54 is a lot, even if it's for two years.  Sometimes people ride bikes because they can afford no other mode of transport.

[Westinghouse]

I know I am not going to pay out money like that to register and license my bicycles. Laws are often nothing more than government machinations for filling their coffers. What if someone goes around on a unicycle? Are they going to tax that too? If everyone ignores the rule, it might just go away. I think it was my hometown in Florida that was trying to a ram tax and fine bicycle law down everybody's throat. I ignored it. In fact, I do not know of anyone who submitted to it. The day they start showing a proper respect and consideration for people traveling by bicycle is the day I might agree to pay such a tax. That does not mean consideration and respect only for young, good looking people touring on expensive bicycles. It means consideration and respect for everyone. How about bike paths apart from roadways? That is a taxable improvement.

Some may say there is not enough cycling to justify expenditures for bicycle roads. I say this. With proper and safe ways for people to cycle short or long distances, more people would venture out on bikes. The fact is I have heard people say they would not go bicycling because of all the traffic. Thay are scared to. I don't blame them. Every time I bicycled across country at least one crime was committed against me by miscreants in cars; well, not every time, but just about every time. I assure you, nobody who cycles across the continent minds his own business more than I do, but always there is some problem with offensive behavior from others. For example, I was cycling through Louisiana when two younger guys drove by and threw a can of beer at me. You can guess that a sixteen ounce beer at fifty or sixty m.p.h. can hurt; they missed, but still the attempt itself constituted a crime. On the PCBR someone tried deliberately to run me off the road with a truck, and did in fact. Again in Louisians some crazy person tried to run into my girlfriend and me at 70-80 m.p.h. The examples go on, but the point is those attacks would never have happened had I not been so conspicuous as a touring cyclist, especially in places where people are not used at all to seeing touring cyclists. China has many special paths for cyclists.

I can see taxes for special cycling roads, but not just to make government rich. Of course, if you have to register a bike to increase your chances of getting it back after a possible theft, they will charge for it, and that is only fair, but it should not be over $5.00, and should not be mandatory. In the UK they have taxes on all kinds of things including a television tax, or at least that was what someone from the UK told me.

 

[DaveB]

Actually, if they would install more trails going across between rivers, similar to our freeway network, more people would get out of their cars and ride the trails, which would mean that freeway-widening projects could be delayed.  IOW, cyclists  reduce the costs of infrastructure.  We don't increase it.  Realistically, I think all this bill will do is reduce the number of people getting some much-needed exercise.  This bill is not good for Oregon or for other states that might follow.

Rep. Krieger seems to have a chip on his shoulder from cyclists not stopping at stop signs and lights.  Please, everyone, don't give people more fuel to hate us.  Obey the laws.  But I also have to say Krieger is wrong about the intended us of the roads.  It was the League of American Bicyclists that originally pushed for paved roads a hundred years ago; and now that motorists have the paved roads, they want us off the roads (or at least damaging them in a car instead of riding a bike).  It makes no sense.

Ever hear the saying; "The power to tax is the power to destroy."?  Maybe Rep. Krieger is mostly interested in getting bikes off the roads, not in increasing revenue.

Yes, the LAW (as it was then known) was instrumental in getting the roads paved and those roads were then taken over almost exclusively for motor vehicles whose operators resent bicycles. 

However, bicyclists were also the major force behind the first Rail-Trail conversions and on most of the resulting trails, the walkers, skaters, runners, etc., etc. now view bicyclist as dangerous and unwelcome intruders on "their" trails. 

[Sofar]

I live in Oregon, and I own 3 bikes ... that will be $81 per year to register my bikes. The proposed law would not require registration if the rider is under 18, but this is still a bad idea that would only reduce bike usage. I think our police have much better things to do than stop bikes to check for registration ... like stopping motorists using their cell phone while driving!

I also have two bike trailers ... I'm sure they'll find a way to tax these as well.

Others have proposed a few, like $5 - $10, on the purchase of new bikes, to go into a bike facilities improvement fund, and I'd support such a plan, but H.B. 3008 is not the answer!

To add insult to injury, Rep. Wayne Krieger (R-Gold Beach) stated that "it’s about time that bicycle users should start paying for roads". As a home owner for 30 years and car owner / driver for 35 years, I think I've been paying for roads in Oregon. Most of the other bike riders that I know also own a car / pay gas taxes and property taxes. Just because we chose to ride a bike doesn't mean that we haven't been paying for roads in Oregon!

[Westinghouse]

They can make laws all day and all night. I am not going to pay an annual tax on my bicycles.Period.

If they build safe roads for cycling, I'll pay.

[TCS]

The funding for public thoroughfares comes from a variety of sources and the percentage varies depending on jurisdiction.  Much of the money to build and maintain highways comes from various motor vehicle taxes, although an important minority of the money comes from general revenue.  Local streets and country roads are generally maintained with moneys from local sales and property taxes.  Necessary periphery expenses for law enforcement and incurrant health care costs are mostly covered through general revenues as well.

As you can see every member of a society bears some of the cost and shares the benefits of the existing public thoroughfares (with of course a range of cost/benefit ratios for individuals).  As societies continue to progress, grow and evolve, they ask "what would we like and how shall we pay for it?"  This is well and good.

However, as an American and as an Adventure Cycling member I find this whole line of reasoning justifying use of streets and roads offensive.  The right to freely come and go, travel and move about using the public thoroughfares for one's private business and one's own pursuit of happiness, being required only to obey reasonable rules of the road, is inherent to humanity.  Being told that one cannot use the public thoroughfare in even the basest and most modest ways without purchasing specific permission from a government is reprehensible oppression.

tcs