Should Chicago Implement a Bike Tax? Lincoln Park Candidates Consider It

LINCOLN PARK — Should Chicago's bikes be taxed with an annual licensing fee similar to cars?

Both candidates in the 43rd Ward aldermanic race said they would consider such a measure during a debate ahead of April's runoff election.

The moderator of the debate last week, Kenneth Dotson, president of the Lincoln Central Association, asked "Do you support a requirement where bicycles be licensed?

Ald. Michele Smith (43rd) said licensing could be the answer to making biking safer in the city.

"Implementing safe bicycling is something we have toiled on in our ward with some success, but there is more that needs to be done," Smith said.

Smith's opponent, Caroline Vickrey, also said she thought licensing could be a good idea.

"I know people who have been hit by bikes in a sort of hit-and-run situation," Vickrey said. "I think it's a good idea as long as it would be a reasonable process.

"We don't want to add another layer of bureaucracy," she said.

This is not the first time the ideas of a bike tax has come up in the city.

In 2013 Ald. Pat Dowell (3rd) floated the idea of a $25 license fee on bikes.

"If we have to register our cars, bikes ought to be registered as well," Dowell said at the time.

The rest of the story:
http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150323/lincoln-park/should-chicago...

Views: 1350

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jordan M S on March 23, 2015 at 1:57am
Apparently there have been some "sort of" bike hit-and-runs. Well, maybe the city is going to start taking automobile hit-and-runs (aka "real" hit-and-runs) seriously.
It's hard to argue against some accountability for bikes if they are running people over and fleeing, but bikers are the wrong place to draw revenue from.
Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on March 23, 2015 at 2:19am
The timing and circumstances suggest this is nothing more than pre-election pandering. It's a non-starter.
Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on March 23, 2015 at 2:42am

Sounds about as silly as having a walking tax. You'd need to license your feet.

Permalink Reply by djm on March 23, 2015 at 5:08am

You'd need to license your shoes.  ;-)

Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on March 25, 2015 at 10:06am

Yes. I have only four bikes but I have no idea how many pairs of shoes I have.

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on March 23, 2015 at 3:16am

Many towns had stickers as an anti-theft measure and a way to trace stolen bikes.

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on March 23, 2015 at 8:46am

Very likely.

Permalink Reply by Maurice on March 24, 2015 at 6:57am

Unfortunately that's not a new sentiment.

 

Once upon a time, Ogden went all the way through to Lincoln Park.

Permalink Reply by Kris Hendry on March 23, 2015 at 5:18pm

We can't have it both ways. If we want to be treated as legitimate transportation we must behave in the same manner. I see many stop off at the local "watering hole" and drink themselves stupid only to get back on their bikes. A $25 license bike fee seems like a good deal compared to those who actually drives cars into the city.

Permalink Reply by Jeremy on March 24, 2015 at 2:21am

I am curious how many people are employed in bike shops across the city and how much those stores generate in sales tax each year.  Those numbers should be sufficient to cover the costs the city incurs from cyclists.

I am also curious if the "people who have been hit by bikes in a sort of hit-and-run situation" Caroline Vickrey speaks of filed police reports.  Those incidents sound made up.

Permalink Reply by Chitown_Mike on March 24, 2015 at 11:23am

Sure I'll pay it, if we add speed bumps at all intersections to stop the stop sign rollers, and make any 4 lane street (aka expressway) into a single lane for auto traffic and we get a full lane for bicycles.

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on March 26, 2015 at 3:30am

I'm not against it philosophically, I have no problem with groups supporting infrastructure that primarily benefits them.  But practically speaking, it's may actually cost more to implement than it brings in.

Toronto tried and failed:

http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=0be4970aa08...

On May 20, 1935 the City of Toronto passed a bylaw to license residents owning and using bicycles on the highways of the City.

The licensing process was quite complicated. Cyclists had to apply for a license through City Hall. Then the cyclist was required to go to a police station and have a police officer inspect the bicycle and fill out paperwork. That paper work was returned to City Hall and a license was granted. The cyclists then had to return a duplicate license to the same Police Inspector where the bicycle was examined. Then a metal plate was issued for the year and affixed to the mudguard of the bike.

Any time the cyclist moved or transferred or exchanged his bike, the new information had to be filed. The cost of the yearly license was 50 cents and the fine for not having a license on your bicycle was $5.00.

On February 4, 1957, City Council repealed the bicycle licensing by-law in the City. At that time, there was a communication from the Canada Cycle and Motor Company Limited suggesting the City use the services of the Bicycle Guild Incorporated to administer bicycle licensing.

At that time, the City opted out of bicycle licensing, stating amongst other issues that "licensing of bicycles be discontinued because it often results in an unconscious contravention of the law at a very tender age; they also emphasize the resulting poor public relations between police officers and children". Nathan Phillips was the Mayor at the time and it is his signature on the by-law amendment.

The City of Toronto has investigated licensing cyclists on at least three occasions in the recent past:

  • 1984: focus on bike theft
  • 1992: focus on riding on sidewalks, traffic law compliance and couriers
  • 1996: focus on riding on sidewalks, traffic law compliance and couriers

Licensing in the nineties has been most often discussed in response to concerns for pedestrian safety on sidewalks, where incidents of collisions, near misses, and a lack of courtesy have made many pedestrians, including seniors feel insecure.

Each time the City has rejected licensing as a solution to the problem under discussion.

The major reasons why licensing has been rejected are:

  • The difficulty in keeping a database complete and current
  • The difficulty in licensing children, given that they ride bikes too
  • Licensing in and of itself does not change the behaviour of cyclists who are disobeying traffic laws.


RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service