Tucson City Council to investigate licensing bikes
theory March 24th, 2010
Mike Mckisson at TucsonVelo is reporting that the Tucson City Council is considering bike licensing in Tucson. Seems they are thinking about a ten-dollar license fee.
I guess I am not in principle opposed to this idea, but I do have a nagging voice telling me that riding a bike should be a right, not a privilege.
Unlike cars, guns, the banking industry, and genetic engineering, bikes have very little potential to do material harm to the polis. Bike riding is already regulated through our traffic laws, of course, assuming it is done on city property. But why should bikes themselves need to be licensed and regulated?
–Erik Ryberg
March 24th, 2010 at 10:12 am
Well, that would certainly shut up everyone who says that bicyclists don’t pay for their use of streets/roads/etc! I mean, if bicyclists had to pay a fee to be licensed then certainly everyone would acknowledge that we have every bit as much of a right to ride as they do a right to drive?
Oh, wait, wishful thinking… they’d still complain about bicyclists, police would still ticket bicyclists and judges would still rule against bicyclists. This would just be a fee bicyclists pay for the right to be abused.
March 24th, 2010 at 10:52 am
So if I live outside of the city and ride into the city will I need to be licensed and pay the fee? Will I also need to pay a fee to Oro Valley, Marana and South Tucson for riding on their streets? If Tucson does it, the others will probably follow.
March 24th, 2010 at 11:02 am
I just spoke with Karin Uhlich, who voted for the motion to keep it on the table.
It sounds like they really have no idea about how it would work or what the requirements would be.
They just want the option to try to use it to get some revenue if it comes down to that.
You would run into so many issues like Loren was referring to.
What about the people who come from other states to ride in El Tour de Tucson? Would they have to register.
So many questions and very few actual answers.
March 24th, 2010 at 11:38 am
Well in theory I’m for any reasonable fee that will quiet the constant lie that cyclists don’t pay for the tiny bit of road we use. But I also know a fee wouldn’t really make much if any difference.
March 24th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
I wonder if the $10 fee would offset the costs of setting up the administrative framework to organize, account for, and enforce the license.
I can’t imagine it would, at least not for the first fiscal year. After that, where would the money go? In the proposal, the cost of finding stolen bicycles is mentioned… why wouldn’t that cost be managed under the same umbrella as all other stolen property? Also mentioned are street cleaning and beautification projects. I can see that as a legitimate destination for funds generated by these fees, but I don’t see the contribution being significant. If there WAS money left over (highly doubtful), would it go beyond beautification to repairing damage cars do to roads? Would it go to funding additional bike-related benefits, such as bike lanes, and studies on their actual effectiveness?
How many bicycles would then be registered per year? Would there be an annual cost to maintain the flow of income?
It will be interesting to follow this, just to see where it goes.
I imagine it will be dropped before it ever gets that far, due to the costs associated with setting up and administering the program to begin with.
March 24th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
“Well in theory I’m for any reasonable fee that will quiet the constant lie…” (Mindy Says March 24th, 2010 at 11:38 am)
Seems Mindy favors paying tribute. Theoretically…
March 24th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Even as late as the ’70’s, bicycles were listed
as taxable property in North Carolina…at, if I
recall, $8. It was the most unheard thing I’d ever
heard of! Pianos, too, and other large-ish items.
They assessed it right on the state income tax form.
I always kept my bike under the bed after I saw that.
It has since been abolished, along with other rude
Southern practices.
March 24th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Speaking of enforcement, on cars it’s pretty obvious if they are licensed or not (highly visible standardized license plate, registration sticker, and placement). How would this be accomplished on bicycles without the police having to (or wanting to) pull over every cyclist to verify?
I don’t think we should be wasting much more brain power on this issue as I’m pretty sure only a tiny fraction of cyclists would ever bother to comply.
March 24th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
So Karin is extending her somewhat feline paw to me for $10 a year? Think I’ll opt out.
March 24th, 2010 at 9:18 pm
I’ll pay $10 per bike as soon as I stop paying $10 per bike for flats caused by potholes
March 24th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
“Set fee at $10 per bicycle.”
So if I own 9 bikes, I have to fork over $90? Geez!
Learn to patch and change tubes, Mickey.
March 25th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Erik,
As a bicyclist and CCW permit holder who rides through some pretty rough areas at night, the city council (and everyone else!) should keep their grubby paws off my Trek and my Glock. (Neither have hurt anybody. One keeps me healthy, the other keeps me safe.)
Back to the topic: there are a million car related businesses in this city — why don’t they slap a tax on gas stations, car washes, mechanic shops, auto parts stores, and dealerships? Even a small excise on car-related commerce could bring in a ton of revenue.
Oh, right — that will never happen because Jim Click owns Tucson lock, stock, and barrel.
March 25th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
I agree with Christian. This will be another reason for cops to stop & harrass bicyclists.
The city could save money by getting more of us on the roads. We use less space (narrower roads=less pavement to maintain) and have much less impact on those roads due to weight. This more than makes up for the cost of painting a bile lane.
If the city really needs bicyclists for revenue, why not an additional sales tax on new bikes? Not that I actually support such a tax, but it’s better than registration.
March 26th, 2010 at 11:52 am
Here is Santa clara County, CA. we are supposed to licence our bikes. I currently have 2 of 4 done. One of those has expired. 3 year listing. The tag goes on the frame most put it at the base of teh seat tube. Cost $3 per bike. At most it covers dat input costs, if that. It can help police return a bike if it is stolen and subsequently found. $10 for life time woudl be fine. If they give out safe cycling info at the same time even better.
March 28th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Everyone pays the same toward
the RTA, Regional Transportation
tax, yet the bicycle slice of the
pie is much smaller. Car-headed
perspective just wants us to pay
twice. I cannot let go of the
feeling that at the very core
of the car addicts’ belief is
the pure aversion to ever have
to start getting around on a
bicycle therefore doing every-
thing possible to discourage
anyone from doing it. It’s so
baseless.
March 29th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Other questions include:
Will my mountain bike, used exclusively for off-road riding, need to be licensed?
How are they going to get the riders on $3k – $8k carbon bikes to comply with attaching a tag to it?
I can’t believe a $10 tag will cover the administrative costs of implementing the program.
March 31st, 2010 at 9:57 am
If by making cyclists register, the city creates a requirement for mandatory bike safety classes…I’m all for it.
If someone wants to drive, they must first put in the hours and get their permit. Should be similar for bikes.
March 31st, 2010 at 10:02 pm
You have got to be kidding.