Impact of City License on Boub?
Let's assume that the City requires a "registration" or "license" to ride in Chicago. Would this mean that, within the City of Chicago, bicyclists are the "intended users" of all of the roads and thus overcome the Boub problem? If so, I would think that they benefits to cyclists (and the costs to the city) of no longer having a "boub" exception for most of the streets might well outweigh the hassles of the license.
Consider:
1. The "fee" for the bicycle would have to be less than the City Sticker. Anything more would clearly be disproportionate. So its no more than $60.
2. The costs of repairing a destroyed wheel (or flatting out several tires in the course of a year) caused by improper maintenance of the streets would easily exceed $60 for any active bicyclist.
3. Without Boub, a good case could be made that the City would be required to "pay" for Pothole damage to Bicycles in a similar fashion for claims for damage to cars.
Just a thought.
Views: 405
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Thunder Snow on
-
This would be wonderful if it worked out your way, but I don't think a bike license would make bikes an intended user of the roads any more than a dog license makes dogs intended users of roads.
-
Permalink Reply by Crazy David 84 Furlongs on
-
Boub has been highly criticized as bad law. The Courts would certainly be given a chance to fix their mistake under these circumstances. Particularly if the basis for the "license" is to provide funds for the building of infrastructure and the like for Bicycles as part of the road and particularly if the license were required for riding on the "public roads". I guess that they could make it a license of "owning a bicycle" within the City Limits of Chicago, but I don't see how that is enforceable nor reasonably related to any purpose so far expressed.
If the purpose of a dog license were to improve infrastructure so that Dogs could better chance cars, it would make them "intended users", but since Dog Licenses have nothing to do with streets, it should have no impact. In the case of Bicycles, its all tied into the use of roads. Certainly this issue would cost the City a lot of money to litigate and if they lost, a lot more than the money that they would bring in.
-
Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on
-
Lets have a license for roller blades, baby strollers and walking shoes as well.
-
-
+1 Howard.
It looked OK in the email notification.
+1 to Jym for the great write-up on the CCM list and +1 to VanHalen that was... =v=
Sammy Hagar, is this what you wanted, man?
Dave lost his hairline but you lost your cool buddy
Can’t drive 55
I’ll never buy your lousy records again
-
-
I am not in favor of the law, I am just pointing out that IF the law is put in place, it will have unintended consequences which will, in fact, benefit the bicycling community. I still get lots of stares from people when I tell people I commute with regularity on my bicycle. They just don't get it. Its faster and makes me feel better than driving or taking the CTA. Its not a long commute (a little over 10 miles) just enough to get warmed up. And you are right, if licensing does happen, it will make it harder to get other people to try it out.
Daniel G said:I really, really don't know about this. When I'm not sure about the actual merit of a particular proposal, I skip to the people who are proposing it. The people who tend to propose bicycle licensure/registration are very rarely pro-bike. There are only a few big draws which bring out new riders to Chicago cycling, and licensure destroys one of them. If I lived somewhere else maybe I could approach these sorts of ideas with a fresh eye, but there are too many people in Chicago who want to strangle bicycling in the cradle. As with most reactionary policies in the pipeline, anti-cycling policies do not announce themselves plainly, and use backdoor "common-sense" strategies to nickle-and-dime problem scenes to death. This is one of them until positively proven otherwise.
-
Permalink Reply by in it to win it 8.0 mi on
-
Troll? Just joined CL today.
David, a little personal history please.
Not cynical, just cautious...
-
-
Okay. I have corrdinated Bike to Work Week at my office for quite a few years. I used to commute from Wrigleyville to the loop during Warm weather by bicycle. I now commute from Wrigleyville to near O'Hare and have been trying to do it in most weather. I take Lincoln to Wilson to Elston (with a wiggle through that neighborhood on Karlov and the like) to Lawrence to Milwaukee to Higgins. I am the person biking that route in bright orange. I have been "arguing" with cars on Expired Meter for quite a while right now. And I think that Critical Mass does a lot more harm than good.
The point I was trying to make is that while we all think that the Kass proposal is bad, it might at least provide a partial solution to Boub and that horrible decision. I was not proposing a license scheme. Its a bad idea and ultimately is unenforceable BUT it would at least offset some of the problems with Boub. Sorry if that's perceived as trollling.
in it to win it said:Troll? Just joined CL today.
David, a little personal history please.
Not cynical, just cautious...
-
-
Welcome to CL! I'm just a little cautious b/c of some recent members who have used CL to promote themselves in other web formats by gleaning from the CL site.
I too commute from Wrigleyville; actually more like Buena Park, but close enough.
If you take a look at page 2 of Sunday's Tribune, Kass brushes off his biking proposals as a big joke. Who knows if he really meant it or was just stirring the pot...
There's a previous thread here addressing the Kass article(s).
Groups
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Wednesday Night for Mort…
1 member
-
Great Lakes Ultra Cycling
270 members
-
Major Taylor Internation…
1 member
-
Critical Mass discussion
261 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
