i bike pass?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-met-kass-0822-2012...

is all this for real?

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on August 22, 2012 at 5:51am

Basic governmental dogma:

If you want to promote something then subsidize it -or a least work to remove the barriers of ownership/use.

If you wan to curb something then tax/regulate/license it to death.

-Which of these do they want to do with bicycling, and why?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Willis on August 22, 2012 at 6:50am

I am not apposed to a yearly bike sticker. There needs to be somthing for the money though. I would expect that the city would be responsable for the logging and up keep of seriol numbers like they do with VIN numbers. Finally is I pay for somthing that is registered if it is stolen the city must make an effort to recover it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michelle S on August 22, 2012 at 6:50am

I'm pretty sure Kass meant this as satire; he's too smart to read it otherwise. When you read the column in that mindset, it's actually funny. I like the part where he says if you give citizens bikes and bike lanes, it won't be long until they're addicted. Let's hope so!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Will on August 22, 2012 at 6:56am

He sure does put the "ass" in "Kass".

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by J M on August 22, 2012 at 7:10am

Thank you.

Not serious. It is meant as satire. He is just pointing out the ridiculous lengths City Hall and the Mayor (or as he like to call him, The Rahmfather) will go to generate any kind of money from the citizens of Chicago. Including easy untaxed targets like bicyclist. His suburban residence is meaningless in regards to his opinion. It's all about the potential cash grab for the City.

Michelle Stenzel said:

I'm pretty sure Kass meant this as satire; he's too smart to read it otherwise. When you read the column in that mindset, it's actually funny. I like the part where he says if you give citizens bikes and bike lanes, it won't be long until they're addicted. Let's hope so!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave Jacque on August 22, 2012 at 7:31am

And of course, once the city uses its license proceeds to hire all these cops, their first priority will be bike theft. Right?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dragonborn on August 22, 2012 at 8:02am

Video

http://www.chicagotribune.com/videogallery/71917353/Politics/Kass-T...

Wow. This John Kass is a real jackass. I hope none of us here buys into this crap. Any forced upon tax, fees, licensing, registration, and even mandatory helmet laws imposed upon cyclists would result in significantly less cycling, not just in Chicago, but throughout the nation. In my opinion, the primary goal of bicycle advocacy is to get more people riding bicycles and ditching cars as much as possible. Bicycles are very positive for the environment, very economical (for now, unless Kass gets his way), very efficient, and most of all, very healthy for people by promoting exercise.

Cameras are a positive thing to help deter bicycle theft and to capture street accidents, but to enforce traffic laws (both motorist and cyclist), I'm totally against cameras for such a purpose. In this country, we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. I want only human police officers giving citations, not a camera or computer. Traffic law cameras only gain revenue for a municipality, they are not effective at saving lives as evidenced by the millions of people who continue to break traffic laws despite the cameras.

I have been a motorist, cyclist, and a pedestrian. I LOVE driving cars and I have driven since I was 16. Guess what? Speaking as a motorist, I absolutely support cycling more and I don't want cyclists to pay anything more than the purchase cost of their bicycles including ongoing maintenance and repairs. Even while driving a car for many years and I would see tons of the "bad" cyclists doing their thing, I still don't want to impose taxes, fees, licensing, and registration on cyclists. The reason is because cycling has far greater advantages for our country than promoting automobiles.

If the City of Chicago ever does this to cyclists, then I also want this to be imposed on pedestrians. I'm dead serious.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dragonborn on August 22, 2012 at 8:15am

Good luck with that. Just like how Chicago's unconstitutional firearms licensing and registration has had ZERO effect on lowering violent crime and murders in Chicago, cyclists paying into "the system" will have no increased effect on getting a stolen bicycle back.

Come on now. Hundreds to thousands of bikes are stolen in Chicago every year and a minuscule amount are ever recovered by the police. Do you really think paying some annual fee would make a difference?

My last bike was stolen back in 2010. Prior to its theft, I already had it registered with Chicago and also the National Bike Registry. After its theft, I filed a police report. No annual city sticker for my bicycle would have made a difference. I'm never getting my bike back.

I'm not flaming you, I'm just saying.

Joe Willis said:

I am not apposed to a yearly bike sticker. There needs to be somthing for the money though. I would expect that the city would be responsable for the logging and up keep of seriol numbers like they do with VIN numbers. Finally is I pay for somthing that is registered if it is stolen the city must make an effort to recover it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gort 12-mile Pinklegneep on August 22, 2012 at 9:25am

Trib is trolling for site hits again

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Active Transportation Alliance on August 22, 2012 at 9:27am

Yes, on the way...we'll post a copy.

Thanks,

Ethan Spotts, Active Trans

Bicycle Poet said:

This is exactly the kind of shotty journalism that holds this city back. I expect a letter to the editor from Active Trans Executive Director Burke or CDOT commissioner Klien. The Tribune embarrasses itself by way of Kass's article, and it ought to be called out.