Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Duppie on October 23, 2013 at 2:55pm

That would be Pat Dowell

http://www.dowellfor3rdward.com/

Here is the link to the Trib article.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-alderman-want...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on October 23, 2013 at 2:55pm

The 3rd ward alderperson is Pat Dowell who supposedly is "bicycle friendly".  She took a trip to Amsterdam, I think, and got a lot of local publicity for it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on October 23, 2013 at 2:58pm

Yes, Pat Dowell, thank you. There seem to be few things more dangerous than an Alderman who thinks they know a little about something.

Hopefully the points I tried to make will come across if they're used.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on October 23, 2013 at 3:06pm

Here's the link to what the Sun-Times published on Ald. Pat Dowell's proposal.  I'll include the text of the article below.

And here's a piece John Greenfield wrote about the trip Pat Dowell took to Europe courtesy of Bikes Belong.

Bike riders should buy $25 annual license, alderman proposes

BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter

Chicago celebrate Bike to Work Week with "Biking It" Rally in Daley Plaza.. Friday, June 17, 2011. | John H. White~Sun-Times.

The more bike lanes and Divvy bike rental stations Chicago installs, the more cyclists there are and the bolder some of them become.

That has at least one Chicago aldermen seeing dollar signs.

South Side Ald. Pat Dowell (3rd) proposed Wednesday that Chicago bike riders be required to purchase $25-a-year licenses and required to take a one-hour safety course.

If 400,000 bike riders purchase licenses, that would generate $10 million. That would duplicate the take from Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s controversial proposal to increase Chicago’s cigarette tax by 75-cents-a-pack.

For Dowell, the motive is twofold. Chicago needs money and needs to be creative about getting it. And if the number of traffic lanes available to motor vehicles is shrinking to make way for cyclists, there should be some responsibility that accompanies those benefits.

“I ride a bike, and I wouldn’t have a problem registering it. It’s important. For me, it is both safety and also a revenue-generator,” Dowell said.

“You register the bike and you also take a one-hour safety education training course. Rules of the road — like you do when you get your driver’s license. There’s been some accidents in the city. We’ve read about that. Some people just get on a bike. They don’t really realize what the rules of the road are or what the signal is for a left-hand turn, a right-hand turn. There’s some usefulness in having them take a short course.”

Ald. Anthony Beale (9th), chairman of the City Council’s Transportation Committee, said he’s all for the idea of licensing bikes.

“That’s thinking outside the box. That’s something we need to look at because a lot of our streets are now being dedicated to people who are riding bikes every single day. If that’s something we need to look at, I’m always open,” Beale said.

The chairman said he would start by getting police statistics on the number of accidents involving bikes. He suspects there’s been a dramatic increase.

The Active Transportation Alliance had no immediate comment.

When now-retired Ald. Richard Mell (33rd) raised the idea two years ago, the group’s executive director Ron Burke said bike licensing had been tried in other countries, but nowhere in the U.S. that he’s aware of — and for good reason.

“It’s been extremely complicated to implement, and it’s not a deterrent to reckless cycling,” Burke said then.

“What is a deterrent to reckless cycling is enforcing the laws that already exist. Cycling the wrong way on a street or on a sidewalk unless you’re under 12 [outside the Central Business District] is illegal. There are plenty of laws on the books already. They need to be enforced. That and better education of cyclists are the two best strategies.”

Transportation Commissioner Gabe Klein has argued that bike riders are “no different than pedestrians and drivers in that there are those who abide by the law and those who don’t.”

In 2011, the City Council agreed to “level the playing field” between cyclists and motorists — by banning texting and talking on a cellphone without a hands-free device while riding.

The crackdown was preceded by the delayed launch of a bike rental program that, Emanuel claimed Wednesday, is already “nationally renowned.”

In his budget address, the mayor also claimed to have delivered on his campaign promise to make Chicago the most “bike-friendly” city in the nation by installing bike lanes “that represent 20 percent of the national’s total urban network.”

 

Email: fspielman@suntimes.com

Twitter: @fspielman

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Duppie on October 23, 2013 at 3:06pm

The Trib says that Dowell wants to replace the revenue brought in by an increased cable tv tax  ($9 million) with revenue from a bike licensing fee.

That would require 360,000 bicyclists to register. How many active cyclists are there in the city of Chicago? How will this be enforced?

Never mind the cost of this program which would likely be higher than the cost of administering a cable tv tax.

Sounds like straight-up pandering to her ward constituents.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Webs on October 23, 2013 at 3:43pm

This is proposed as a yearly fee. You don't even have to pay that to drive a car! I think it's ludicrous. Also, she states in the article that she wants it to replace the cable television tax hike. Yet again, I am disappointed to an extreme degree in the politicians of Chicago.

Paul Gnarlo said:

I would happily pay this fee to ride my bike in chicago if we had a full comprehensive dedicated/protected bike lane system throughout chicagoland just as cars do for roads. Because after all, bikes are just like cars right?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Maher on October 23, 2013 at 3:51pm

The Stupid is strong in this one.  I'm curious how much cash Dowell gets from the cable industry.  

If the primary concern was the poor folks of Chicago, taxing a good number of poor peoples' primary means of transportation instead of a luxury item like cable, then…?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michelle on October 23, 2013 at 3:53pm

Honestly. All I saw was "and it's a revenue generator" over and over again. Thats the only point to this article, and I bet you $25 (heh...) it will catch on because "hey look money!" 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Keating on October 23, 2013 at 3:54pm

I think everyone should keep in mind that it doesn't even look like there has been a proposed ordinance. In other words, right now this is just talk and nothing officially proposed, let alone voted on. On top of it, a change like this would most likely ultimately require the Mayor's approval. This could just be nothing more than some Alderman trying to needle the Mayor about bikes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sean Phalen on October 23, 2013 at 3:56pm

Maximizing the amount of time spent in front of a television is definitely one of the top priorities I want my government to tackle. We really need to do all we can to discourage people from being active outdoors so they can sit on their couch being productive. Kudos!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on October 23, 2013 at 4:00pm

Not worth getting your chamois in a bundle, folks. As Duppie so eloquently points out, this is pandering. Pure and simple.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on October 23, 2013 at 4:24pm

You don't pay for registration for your car?  Or a city sticker?

Ava Ensign said:

This is proposed as a yearly fee. You don't even have to pay that to drive a car! I think it's ludicrous. Also, she states in the article that she wants it to replace the cable television tax hike. Yet again, I am disappointed to an extreme degree in the politicians of Chicago.

Paul Gnarlo said:

I would happily pay this fee to ride my bike in chicago if we had a full comprehensive dedicated/protected bike lane system throughout chicagoland just as cars do for roads. Because after all, bikes are just like cars right?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page