The Chainlink

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/8435830-418/alderman-asks-whe...

 

And Gabe Klein handling it perfectly.

 

And Ron Burke coming off as calling for a crackdown on cyclists (probably taken out of context, but note that Gabe didn't give them anything to take out of context.)

 

(***TCA= "this crap again")

Views: 2422

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Ethan, thanks for the "correction" to your ExecDir and related info on this! Over at Streetsblog there's this (from 2008):

Here's the facts.  The California Vehicle Code allows municipalities to take part in a bike licensing program by either creating a voluntary program for cyclists or requiring every bike to have a registration picture as seen above.  Locally, at least the City of Los Angeles, Santa Monica and Long Beach all take place in the program by requiring bikes to be licensed.  If you're not sure whether your municipality requires licenses, call the municipal building and ask.

As for the rest of you who have been stating that the impracticalities alone will prevent licensing, Streetsblog also mentions that (again back in 2008), bikers were experiencing an uptick in tickets for unlicensed bikes. 
And it would take a loooong time for bikes to put wear and tear on roads as opposed to cars and trucks.

Dan Korn said:
notoriousDUG said:

Or it could be argued that bikes should contribute something towards the infrastructure that they use...

 

It's not an illogical point.

 

It would seem logical, but for the fact that cyclists already pay taxes which subsidize the infrastructure they use, namely streets.  Placing restrictions and use fees on cyclists is an excellent way to discourage cycling and put more cars on those streets, increasing the costs of maintenance.

You are welcome, of course Garth, thanks for the good info! Can you please post the link to the Streetsblog post? We'd appreciate it.

 

Thanks,


Ethan, Active Trans

 

da' Square Wheelman (aka garth) said:

Ethan, thanks for the "correction" to your ExecDir and related info on this! Over at Streetsblog there's this (from 2008):

Here's the facts.  The California Vehicle Code allows municipalities to take part in a bike licensing program by either creating a voluntary program for cyclists or requiring every bike to have a registration picture as seen above.  Locally, at least the City of Los Angeles, Santa Monica and Long Beach all take place in the program by requiring bikes to be licensed.  If you're not sure whether your municipality requires licenses, call the municipal building and ask.

As for the rest of you who have been stating that the impracticalities alone will prevent licensing, Streetsblog also mentions that (again back in 2008), bikers were experiencing an uptick in tickets for unlicensed bikes. 
Mike, you're assuming that governmental licensing is about anything other than revenue collection.  My dog needs to be licensed, though its paws do no harm to the sidewalk. A home based web design business still needs a business license to operate, though there is zero infrastructure damage caused by it.  Bicycle licensing would just be about closing budget gaps. 

Mike Zumwalt said:
And it would take a loooong time for bikes to put wear and tear on roads as opposed to cars and trucks.

Truth.

 -f

Christopher Warland said:

Hmm, reduced congestion, less pollution, reduced wear and tear on infrastructure, lower public health and insurance costs...seems as if cyclists should be subsidized, not taxed. 

   

They even offer online registration!



Thunder Snow said:

All bikes in Chicago are, by law, ALREADY registered/licensed with the authorities:

"9-120-020- Registration - Permalink

It is hereby made the duty of the owner of every bicycle, before operating or permitting the operation of the same upon any public way within the city, to register said vehicle with the commissioner of police on a form provided for such purpose. Registration may be accomplished by filing the registration record or form, duly filled out, in the office of the commander of the police district in which the bicycle owner resides, or by mailing said form, duly filled out, postage prepaid, to the commissioner of police.

Prior Registration code § 29.1-2; Amend Coun. J. 7-12-90, p. 18634"

We have a similar statute in my town of Evanston, and I'd bet many other towns in the area have the same laws.  I even paid a fifty cent per bike license fee to Evanston, which seems like a reasonable cost.

Since most bikes in the area are ALREADY LICENSED by the local authorities, Alderman Mell, you can STFU.


Ethan,

 

A few years or so ago Detroit attempted to reintroduce a licensing or registration scheme. It may formally still exist, but if so it is more theoretical than anything else. My memory is a little fuzzy, as this was a few years ago when I still lived there. If it's something you want to look into, Todd Scott is probably the first person that comes to mind that would know where that initiative went.

 

David


Active Transportation Alliance said:

 

 

Also, in response to Garth, we aren't aware of any current bike licensing going on in major U.S. cities.

 

“I wonder if it’s possible. I guess you can’t do it. But, have ’em licensed. Have a bike license. Put a little tag on it. Pay a couple bucks. But if not that, at least say, ‘Here’s what we’re doing for you. How ’bout doing something for us? How ’bout adhering to the traffic signs?’” Mell said.

 

Mell...What a myopic moron...Do something for you Mell?...You have sucked off the taxpayers teat your whole life...How could his ward keep re-electing this jag?

While I think Mel is a complete waste of space, I really don't think he was proposing this out of a quest to find new revenues.

Thunder Snow said:

Mike, you're assuming that governmental licensing is about anything other than revenue collection.  My dog needs to be licensed, though its paws do no harm to the sidewalk. A home based web design business still needs a business license to operate, though there is zero infrastructure damage caused by it.  Bicycle licensing would just be about closing budget gaps. 

Mike Zumwalt said:
And it would take a loooong time for bikes to put wear and tear on roads as opposed to cars and trucks.

And fortunately for us, Rahm and Gabe get this.

Fran Kondorf said:

Truth.

 -f

Christopher Warland said:

Hmm, reduced congestion, less pollution, reduced wear and tear on infrastructure, lower public health and insurance costs...seems as if cyclists should be subsidized, not taxed. 

 

Thats stupid um not paying jack to ride my bike its haRMLESS

da' Square Wheelman (aka garth) said:

Ethan, thanks for the "correction" to your ExecDir and related info on this! Over at Streetsblog there's this (from 2008):

Here's the facts.  The California Vehicle Code allows municipalities to take part in a bike licensing program by either creating a voluntary program for cyclists or requiring every bike to have a registration picture as seen above.  Locally, at least the City of Los Angeles, Santa Monica and Long Beach all take place in the program by requiring bikes to be licensed.  If you're not sure whether your municipality requires licenses, call the municipal building and ask.

As for the rest of you who have been stating that the impracticalities alone will prevent licensing, Streetsblog also mentions that (again back in 2008), bikers were experiencing an uptick in tickets for unlicensed bikes. 
Active Transportation Alliance said:

You are welcome, of course Garth, thanks for the good info! Can you please post the link to the Streetsblog post? We'd appreciate it.

Here you go Ethan - Streetsblog!

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service