Your Tax Dollars At Work, Part Bleah…
Just in case you had any faith left in your state government, they’ve gone and done it again. House Bill 3008 aims to force cyclists to register their bikes. The registration will cost $54 and must be renewed every two years. The bill will also make it a crime to remove or alter the serial number on a bike or to ride an unregistered bicycle. Even better, it will create a database of bicycle registrations, available to law enforcement agencies, that will track the name, address, phone number, and date of birth of the owner, a whole mess of information about the make, model, etc. of the bike, and “any other information the Department of Transportation considers necessary.” The money is ostensibly going to go into a fund that will be used to pay for bicycle infrastructure.
Furthermore, bike owners will henceforth need to notify the government within fifteen days any time a bicycle changes ownership. Even more bizarrely:
The bill says ODOT can contract with “any private person or entity or other unit of government”. The “agent” that issues the registration would keep one-third of the money and the other two-thirds would go back to ODOT.
I can’t imagine what might go wrong with that.
The bill has already outraged the smug, self-righteous cycling set in Portland (they interviewed some woman on the news tonight who complained about being shouted at by “overweight people in their cars” when she’s just out there… you know… “trying to be healthy”), which means this thing probably doesn’t stand much of a chance. In fact, OregonLive reports that the chief sponsor, Wayne Krieger, who hails from my home town, “conceded the legislation probably won’t pass, particularly with ‘everybody struggling’ in the bad economy.”
It’s too bad Mr. Krieger can’t find a better way to spend his constituents’ money in this bad economy than introducing utterly absurd legislation that even he admits is dead-on-arrival.
The ban on novelty lighters looks like the Code of Hammurabi compared to this abortion.
[…] with the ill-considered bicycle registration idea, Oregon now has a trifecta of completely asinine […]
Just so I have this straight: You think people should be forced to register their bicycles, and the registration fee should be based on the person’s weight
… and you’re calling us smug.
Okay…here’s a thought: How bout we decide what the registration fee for the bike is by weighing the owner ON the bike? This could be done yearly, every 2 years…whatever. Have a scale that gives you X number of pounds for your age/height…like those Dr.s charts….make it like 2 bucks if you fall into that category. Then tax em 5 bucks for every pound over that they are. That way you can insure the fat folks don’t ride and retain their lard ass status.
For the tubby’s that wish to pay the hefty starting registration fee, we could have a provision that allows them to re-weigh every 6 months and receive a pro-rated rebate….although if they weigh MORE they’d have to pony up the extra $.
And sorry for equating the arrogant atheists with Limpbaugh loving theists earlier…so hard to tell you smug motherfuckers apart.
Oregon bicyclists, should pay a registration fee, but some already pay to register their vehicles, so the fee shouldn’t be as high in that case. The courts should have a way to enforce traffic laws on bicyclists. They are just a bunch of anarchists and lawbreakers and now they are getting even more whacked out by staging naked bicycle rides. The more this controversy goes on the more I am tempted to give my bicycle away, I want nothing to do with them anymore.
Betz, You like Iron Maiden. You despise the cult of “sustainablity” psuedo-science. We are friends. That is an order. What do you think of the album titled “Seventh Son of a Seventh Son” ? I think that was their best. Yes, I ate enough acid in the 80’s to send the entire Pit Crew diving naked into the Willamette on a snow day. You can quote me on that.
Wait, is nike urbanism duk asking if he is hallucinating?
And all this time I thought he was hallucinating while posting … this must be serious if it can snap him out of it long enough to ask “am I hallucinating?”
Unfuckingbelievable. There is this casual Alan Pittman posting up at the Eugene Weekly blog(I know you hate it but just wait a damn minute) about Rooselvelt school putting RFID chips in students bike helmets and awarding them a free IPOD. I wish it was a joke. It seems to be posted as something neat. IT IS THAT FASCIST ORWELL BIKE TAX AGAIN AND 4J SCHOOLS IS THE ENEMY. Will someone else check this so I know it is not a hallucination please ? What the hell are they smoking at the Weekly ? Genetically modified superkill nuggets ?
Wait….Thunder Green is people?
Even more they were extra large…….standing up for the rights of the overstuffed Ducks.
You’re as bad as nike urbanism duk. At least he gave us ‘Class War: Just Do It!’ shirts.
So, …..This is a tough crowd. Have we resolved whether or not we want to register bicycles or not? I believe there is quite a bit of filibustering going on here. I also believe no one has learned the constitution yet, Ed will in fact hang up the spandex, Karla has been extinguished, I am fat, Organic gardening will soon be outlawed, processed food has little or no nutritional value, and Eugene has implimented my idea 30 years ago of ticketing offenders. Are we good here?
Ed. I would rather play chicken with a idiot biker in the bike lane than with the F’ing “meth express” EMX buses going the wrong way down East 11th street. Defazio should be having to answer some tough questions about his work securing funding for that “sustainable solution”. An eco-fascistic “final solution” better describes that green eggs and ham pork barrel project. How about holding a bike destruction derby in the ampitheater soon to settle these bike gone wild conflicts ? Fixed gear hipsters, you are all invited. The winner gets the last of OSPIGGs unspent funds. The loser gets to be ASUO exec next year. This F’ing bike tax is just to payoff the idiotic “meth express” bills. It is free you say ? Yeah right, so is OSPIGG. The government obsession with the childhood obesity “epidemic” reminds me of that evil old witch who captured Hansel and Gretel. Do we need a civil rights movement to protect our freedom to be a lardass in this country ? Answer: yes. OSPIGG needs a new platform for next year. How about a campaign to spread awareness about the environmental impact of men who are attracted to fat women ?
I wonder how much internal strife you must live with every day to argue two different sides of an issue. Either that, or the person is just arrogant, and wants to demonstrate what a cunning linguist they are…
I won’t even get on taxing fat people…the issue is, how shall I say, a little “heavy” for my tastes (hehe..)
I’m not sure that’s true.
As far as taxing fat people goes. This will be very sustainable once you factor in the lack of organically grown food in the coming months. Our food supply will be empty calories and few nutrients by design according to Codex Alimentarius rules. Nutrients will be labled basically as a narcotic to be distributed only by a pharmacist.
But let us get back to the bike thing here. No license, no additional tax. Just ride your bike and learn from your mistakes. Pay your ticket if you get stopped. And no I am not Karla/Mark.
I think taxing fat people might be more sustainable than I previously figured.
First, you’d tax them based upon their average yearly weight and if they lost any weight then the difference could be pro-rated against the next tax year.
Second, if they had no money to pay their fat tax then a system could be initiated were they could pay with pounds of flesh (which they have plenty of har har). You could cut it right out of their thunder thighs.
“How about we reduce the need for all of these creative ways to tax people and we just write tickets to people who break the law on a bike? How hard is that?”
This has been going on in Eugene for over 30 years. Hell, my uncle got a ticket…and I shit you not…for “accelerating through an intersection” because he didn’t come to a complete stop at a red light. There was no traffic around, so my uncle crossed the street (like a pedestrian might) and BOOM…ticket. I also know of more than a few people who have recieved BUI’s in Eugene.
Regarding taxing fat people: Are we talking the morbidly obese? Or just the sort of hefty? Because, I’m not sure most morbidly obese people are real money earners. I have my suspicions and I don’t think people who can’t get out of their own beds or wipe their asses are typically day traders.
They probably don’t have any money at all. Consuming those sorts of calories can’t be cheap.
Would they be taxed by the pound or would they fall into “fat brackets?” What if they lost weight halfway though the tax year or gained weight a couple of months before taxes were due? What if their weight fluctuates? Could you get tax credits for working out? What if you worked out, but didn’t loose any weight?
I’m not sure taxing fat people is very sustainable.
Not necessarily true. Could be two people sitting behind one router, or using public internet at a bar, library, or, since the IP originated in Portland, a coffee shop.
One person playing two sides of the coin and trying to disavow each other. Needless to say, it didn’t work.
Although considering “mark” and “KARLA” are posting from the same IP address, perhaps I spoke too soon.
Karla:
You don’t spend much time around here, do you?
P.S. Let me clarify…Ed. It should be against the law for you to wear spandex. It should be ladies only.
And the sideways dunce cap helmets, those have to go, unless they are orange. That way when you go face first the public is alerted because there is a cone on scene immediately.
Well way to out yourself as a couple of glutinous breeders, Vicious and Suckass.
My guess is you 2 are just left over conservatives who are suffering some identity crises in the midst of Hope and Change.
Breathe deep, go find a radio and turn on your beloved Rush Limpbaugh. Your world will make sense in no time.
And by all means feel free to include your wish I die in a fire when you pray tonight. That’ll play huge with your God. I hear he’s big on fire.
Ed…with all due respect and deepest admiration, isn’t ticketing offenders the best way of teaching? It worked on my first 35 mph in a school zone. I do not need to be coddled by big brother on how to ride a bike. Umm, I learned when I was ….5! Long before a car. if you need to take a test and get government approval and permission for riding a bike, let’s get licenses for wheelchairs. Hell let’s do walking. That is probably next if old Uncle Ted can figure out how to exempt himself from that tax. Then it will be GPS on your bike. I want the government out of my ass and my wallet. Hugs and kisses bro.
Vincent, you make me proud. At least we agree on something: That Karla should go die in a fire.
Mark: Spandex is good for you. This isn’t about authority, or the constitution; this is about making cyclists knowledgeable – and accountable – when on the road… not to mention keeping them alive a little longer, and causing innocent drivers a little less trauma. Unless you’re an anarchist, you must surely be able to see something useful in that.
Why don
And by the way Mark, spandex is NOT a crime…yet.
Why don’t we concentrate on taxing things that DON’T promote a healthier, greener lifestyle?
Like a tax on fast food or junk food or disposable diapers, etc? A tax on more than 2 kids or a loss of all dependent tax breaks if you have more than 2?
I look around and see all kinds of things to tax that make better sense than nailing a group of people with crap attitudes.
I will however concede that Ed and Mark make good points bout licensing (for those who don’t HAVE a drivers license) and ticketing, should a cop see a biker taking illegal traffic liberties or being retarded.
Beyond that, I say lay a tax on the fat, breeders who drive gas guzzling beasts that actually damage the roads and contribute to greenhouse gases and oil dependency.
Ed is my older brother do not listen to him. He wears spandex. This should be outlawed.
How about we reduce the need for all of these creative ways to tax people and we just write tickets to people who break the law on a bike? How hard is that? The first time I see a cop behind a bicycle with lights flashing and the old registration and insurance please….I am going to go nuts!
We have the right to travel damn it! It was bad enough they convinced everyone to allow car registrations and accepted your right to travel as a privilege for non commercial activities. Learn the constitution people. Then we can teach it to the a holes running things.
Ed is the type of bicyclist I would never run over. He’s a nice guy. Not only that, but he beats up other bicyclists.
Let’s go with his idea. It’ll reduce the number of cycle accidents with Toyotas.
Let’s stop pointing fingers and fix some problems. Let’s kill two proverbial birds with one stone: The state wants/needs to make more $$, and we all want irresponsible/lawbreaking cyclists off of the road. Registering the bikes is not the answer; the bikes themselves aren’t causing the problem. Let’s license the cyclists for traveling the state’s roadways. We (I, being a cyclist, include myself in this) should make ourselves familiar with the Drivers’ Manual, take the test and pay for the same privilege that drivers earn when they pass their test. Cyclists who already hold a drivers’ license could perhaps have a cycling endorsement added, at reduced cost. Besides increased enforcement, we have GOT to get the rules of the road across to cyclists, and hold them accountable for their actions when on the road. Mere suggestions are not working! I know I’m getting tired of playing chicken with cyclists riding the wrong way in the bike lane! I won’t move for them, so I hope pain is something they enjoy – and that’s nothing compared to doing something stupid in front of a moving car. No, I don’t have all the answers, but we gotta start somewhere.
I almost got owned on campus today by two different people riding their bikes without their hands on the handlebars. Death to cyclists.
Betz – Because for the love of the flying spaghetti monster, one can in principle be against establishing yet another complicated layer of red tape so that people can just go to fucking work or ride their bike in the fucking park. The point is that the attitudes that lead us to licensing florists lead us to registering other things. Would roads exist independent of cyclists? Yes. Do they impose any kind of real marginal cost? Fucking doubtful.
Are you people listening to yourselves? You’re arguing that in order to be fair we should impose more regulations on unregulated activity, because other people have to deal with that shit. You’re saying that rather than enforcing existing traffic laws, we need to create an edifice in addition to that? I mean, people who ride bikes like they’re immortal already face injury and death at the hands of simple Newtonian physics, so I’m not sure a $50 fee and a fine are really going to do much beyond that. All you’re doing is giving an already bloated state another excuse to harass people.
And if that’s how you want to roll, well, that’s not really different from the rest of the world, but you should at least be aware of it. To me “cyclists are assholes” does not lead to “we should give the government more power”, but your milage may vary.
The bill is not about revenue. The bill is about “smart” roads also known as “intelligent transportation systems”. OSU and PSU nerds are pioneers in the field(they collaborate with ODOT). Eventually riders will be mandated to carry a smart card which will act as a electronic beacon. Paranoid you say ? Look it up. The smart/new economy is all about revenge of the nerds. The GPS car thing is moving along……this extends it to bikes eventually. Don’t you just love sustainability ?
Alex: Exactly. This bill isn’t targeted at the “innocuous” hobbyist out for a fun-ride – its aimed at people who use bicycles as their primary means of transportation. Thats partially why I am curious about the reference in the bill to “state highway” use only, because that sure as hell doesn’t sound like a public park, or neighborhood streets … I’m not even sure that busy streets like Sandy Blvd. or Broadway even count as a technical highway. I agree … a lot of cyclists on the roads (busy cities, especially) are dumb-fucks that don’t follow the rules. Which is bad, because this gives all bicyclists a bad reputation, and some do follow the rules. These law-abiding citizens have demanded equal rights for bikers on the road, and this bill is one step closer to that equality. If it were me, I would also like to see that all bikes using the roads be fitted with certain standard equipment (like cars), such as “brakes”, making those dangerous “fixies” illegal like they should be. (Whoever designed the idea of a fast-moving vehicle to be used on surface streets, and with no brakes seriously has no care for the people who ride those stupid things).
Timothy: Look, the principle of this bill is to tell cyclists that if you use your bike as your primary means of transportation, you should pay to help maintain streets. Whats wrong with that? Bicycles don’t impact the roads the same way snow tires or chains do, but cyclists still use bike lanes; they still use traffic lights and signs (well, they should); they still require their lanes to be clean; and all of this costs government money. They use this service, why shouldn’t they help pay for some of it? I wouldn’t really call a bicycle commuter a hobbyist, because if they use it to get to work, that’s not a hobby – that’s transportation. If you’re really so concerned that the government is trying to tax one more thing people enjoy for fun and physical activity (and I DO understand your point here), why not have exemption credits for people that already own cars and pay road service taxes? Most people own cars, and I’ll bet you only a few people that own bikes do NOT own cars, and do NOT pay taxes for road service. This would eliminate double taxation of the truely fun-loving bike enthusiasts and people looking for some free activity outdoors, and it would specifically target the bicyclists that use the public roads, but don’t pay for the maintenance of those roads in the form of motor vehicle taxes.
Other taxes shouldn’t be relevant when considering the merits of this bill. Why should some ridiculous, completely non-related tax impact this bill? If that other tax really is stupid (and I agree … I couldn’t care less if I had a non state-licensed florist), then maybe the right question to ask is not whether this bike tax is a good idea, but why do we require florists to be licensed, and how can we remove that tax?
“I mean, honestly, do we really need another state licensure program for an innocuous hobby?”
Of course this is a completely un-enforceable notion, but recreational cyclists have a way of fucking shit up for everyone. Have you ever driven down a country road on a day when there were 150+ people in one group out for a “casual” 25 mile ride? Because I have, and some would say on those days I’ve been on the verge of what courts would consider “mass murder.”
I love my bike, and I ride it a lot when the weather is fair, but I wouldn’t say it’s an “innocuous hobby.” I would argue that 90% of bicyclists are assholes on the road. To me, a bill like this seems like a reasonable way of saying, “Hey you dumbfucks, there are still rules for you too.”
Just look at those fucking dickheads on their fixies. Don’t tell me you haven’t watched one one of those assholes with no brakes slide through traffic and wished he or she wouldn’t crash and die. If a bill like this were to go through there may not ever be fixies again!
Full disclosure- I have been drunk since like 10:00 p.m. yesterday.
Why don’t we just not fucking worry about petty shit like this, instead? I’m sorry, but what kind of goddamned world do we live in when this kind of intrusive bullshit is even up for debate?
Betz: I’m sorry, but on this you’re not just wrong you’re Marxism wrong. I mean, honestly, do we really need another state licensure program for an innocuous hobby? Do we really want to open that up? I mean, shit, we already license fucking florists as in people who put flowers in vases, so why shouldn’t we make some more goddamned rules about things nobody should have the time to worry about? This proposal is so retarded it rides the short bus to sessions and isn’t allowed to play with the other proposals in committee.
The questions getting asked here are exactly wrong. “If we do this for cars why do we do it for bikes?” NO DAMMIT the right question is “why do we do this for cars?”. There are taxes, all kinds of taxes, collected with all kinds of excuses about needing to tax X to pay for the consequences of X — and they’re all bullshit. People start using less gas, they want to tax milage, people switch to bikes, they want to tax bikes. No, just no, that’s insane and I’m sick of it. It is time for the leeches in Salem and elsewhere to learn to live within the budget they have, and to stop trying to get more and more regardless. If income, property, and gas taxes aren’t enough to perform their duties, then they need to find some duties to cut.
Full Disclosure – I haven’t owned a bicycle since 2001.
C.T. Behemoth: I agree, bikes don’t tax the environment (and by environment, I wasn’t talking about ‘the earth’ or ‘nature’, but the human environment and the conditions on the road) as much as a car does in terms of road wear or emissions, but the fact is that people do maintain these bike lanes, and making roads safe for bicyclists. Self-important bikers demand it (and in Portland, they’re pretty obnoxious and loud). You and I might disagree on the impact bikers have on the roads and the environment, but the point that is important is this: If you use a bike for road transport (riding in the bike lane or even on street roads themselves), you should pony up as well. You use it, you pay for it.
That being said, I think where there can be alot of room for improvement is the implementary details of the bill. Does $54 dollars seem fair? I don’t think each biker incurs $54 of maintenance fees in two years. What if this was extended to 5 years? Or if the fee were dropped to something more manageable, like $15 or $20 instead of $54? (How exactly was this magic figure of $54 chosen?)
An interesting suggestion someone had on the KATU forums was that if you want to use your bike on roads, you should have to provide some basic competency skills for riding on the roads, like a licensing program for bikers, or requiring these same bikers to carry some form of insurance. Personally, I like the licensing idea better than the insurance, but it is a workable suggestion. And, having bikers acquiring a license prior to riding would surely cut down on some of the anger and frustration experienced on both sides of the wheel. Drivers can be more assured that bikers know what they are doing, will respect traffic rules, etc. and bikers should be able to command more respect from car-drivers on the road when they ride.
You and I can disagree on a lot of things about this bill, but I think the principle is what is important here: If you use the roads, you should help pay for them.
I think arguments against this law make an excellent argument against having to register your car.
An average bike weighs around 25-35 pounds, whereas the average car (in 2004) weighed 4,000 pounds. The idea that a bike is going to cause damage to roads and incur major (or even equivalent) costs to the state is ludicrous.
Yeah, street cleaners clean bike lanes, but they’re cleaning the road for cars. The assumption here is that if cyclists weren’t around, the first 2-3 feet from the curb could be held in reserve for trash and other waste (i.e. leaves). Point being, that part of the road is going to get cleaned whether or not someone is cycling on it or if there is a bike lane.
Painting lines on a road can’t be too terribly expensive, but even if it does cost the state money, most people pay taxes for this sort of thing. Charging people twice just seems wrong to me.
Besides, cities should encourage cycling whenever possible. It has no downside beyond asshole cyclists who endanger their lives and the lives of car drivers. Most cyclists don’t do this though given that self-preservation seems to be a driving force in most people’s lives.
As to the environmental impact of bikes vs. cars….I’m not even going to go there.
The next thing out will be registering shoes, especially shoes that are steel-toed or that have extra traction of any sort. God help you if you wear cleats for a sport and walk on the road in them. You’ll register those shoes and pay your fee for wearing down the sidewalk! Life ain’t free!
There are SO MANY OTHER AREAS where more effective changes could be made:
1) Make it illegal to have studded tires on your vehicle from mid-March to mid-November. That, or outlaw them altogether. They chew up pavement.
2) Make it illegal to have chains on your tires if there is not snow on the ground.
3) Make people with heavier vehicles pay more to use the road. This already happens to a certain extent, but it’s the heavy vehicles that do the most damage.
[T]he law only requires cyclists to register for use on state highways
I don’t think this bill is necessarily a bad idea.
Bicyclists have complained about bikes being the same as a vehicle, and demanding the same rights / privileges on the road that car owners have. Well, be careful what you wish for, I guess.
The argument that bikes shouldn’t have to pay taxes for maintenance because they don’t tax the environment is just wrong. Government money goes to painting lines on the road, keeping bike lanes clean, occasionally paving bike lanes, building new ones … In downtown Portland, there is a whole new painted green square, which is some kind of special “bike-box” … its about a car’s length, and is designed to protect bicyclists sharing the road, or something like that.
I haven’t read the whole bill, but to my understanding, the law only requires cyclists to register for use on state highways … what exactly constitutes a state highway? Can I ride my bike down Murray hill without having to pay a registration fee? A better suggestion to the whole registration idea is that if you already own a vehicle and pay road taxes for that, you should be exempt from the bike registration fee (or rather, register at a much reduced cost!)
When you think about it, the bill’s purpose not a bad idea: if you use the road, you should pony up and cover some of the costs, regardless if you’re on a bike or in a car. Bike usage on the roads and up-keeping bike lanes requires maintenance, plain and simple. $54 dollars is not outrageous considering vehicles road taxes. Where this bill will go wrong is all the extra “pork” stuck into it (I have no idea what the ODOT “agent” thing is all about, but you’re right … this can go bad very easily).
Most of the comments in the KATU forum are pretty good … what I have noticed is that most of the people that are opposed to the bill (and who I can only assume are bikers themselves) come across as huge douchetards. I’m sure many interesting correlations can be drawn from that, but I’ll leave that up to the reader to decide.
That is so not cool. Registering bicycles just takes the freedom and point out of riding. What’s next rollerblades, skateboards, uni-s, ice skates? Where does it end?
I see the necessity to register, saving stolen bikes and having insurance etc. but it just seems like another barrier to anyone who doesn’t want to drive. Also for people who are bicyclists trying to make a living, that just makes the livelihood so much more difficult.
Chalk it up to my hate of bicyclists. Now if more of them were unicyclists, I’d be much less likely to want to see them taxed to death.
W……..T………F ????
Frankly, since a bicycle is considered a vehicle by transportation standards, I would like to see bikes treated the same.
Including the $500 licensing fee. It’ll make them think twice about breaking the law. Or finding themselves under my bumper asking themselves why they crossed the street in front of me while I had a green light.