The Chainlink

Views: 2755

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Excited to see what happens when and if the Dearborn corridor gets put in...

There are enough toys (boats, ATVs, snowmobiles, etc) that require licensing (if only for fee collection) that I wouldn't rule it out. I could see the state attempt to start a licensing system for bikes similar to the one for canoes and kayaks.



Charlie Short said:

It will never come. Licencing is administered by the state and they will never think of bikes as anything but toys. The city can't enforce the registration ordinance it already has in place, and with bike share, getting riders to use the system is going to take precedence or licencing.  

This is what folks such as Kass conveniently forget. There are really good, objective societal (and governmental) interests in increasing bicycling and decreasing automobiling. As a result, government has an interest in increasing participation. 

This may not always be the case. Or legislators who don't understand these interests may interfere. In the meantime, I think the best thing we can do is to continue to promote a greater understanding of why there's an interest (for all citizens, including those who will always drive) in bicycle infrastructure.

It's funny. For folks who won't ever bicycle, the best thing that could ever happen would be for 25% of the other cars on the road to convert their trips to bicycle... there'd be enough less traffic to make a real difference in the remaining drivers' lives. But those drivers have a hard time understanding why they should be promoting (and funding) bicycle infrastructure.

-jbn


Charlie Short said:

It will never come. Licencing is administered by the state and they will never think of bikes as anything but toys. The city can't enforce the registration ordinance it already has in place, and with bike share, getting riders to use the system is going to take precedence or licencing.  

I wasn't being facetious. ATV's and Boats are motorized, and generally, high-ticket, high sales tax items. Canoes and Kayaks are limited use, and can both use waterways equally. Bikes are currently not an intended road user in Illinois and don't use the road in the same way that cars do. Illinois law enforcement could not keep up with regulating bikes.

It was suggested to me that bikes get licensed like dogs, in that you renew yearly and only pay a fine (for non-compliance) when you break the law. My impression is that CPD (and other districts) don't want to waste their time with this kind of piece-meal ticketing.

Cameron Puetz said:

There are enough toys (boats, ATVs, snowmobiles, etc) that require licensing (if only for fee collection) that I wouldn't rule it out. I could see the state attempt to start a licensing system for bikes similar to the one for canoes and kayaks.



Charlie Short said:

It will never come. Licencing is administered by the state and they will never think of bikes as anything but toys. The city can't enforce the registration ordinance it already has in place, and with bike share, getting riders to use the system is going to take precedence or licencing.  

I think city licensing may be a possibiity in a world where municipalities are starved for cash and looking to tax users any way they can.  It would be no different from dog or peddler's licenses. (the pun hit me after I saw it in print.) Get $25 or $50 a year from each bike that is used in the city. Give cops another reason for pulling people over.  its win win for them. They really don't have to enforce it.  Put it out there and money will come in.  Some will refuse to get the license and run the risk of getting caught.  I am not certain whether the city could force me (a suburbanite- I am no better than Kass) to have a license.  I suspect they can.  If all municipalities started to require these would we only have to have one alike vehicle stickers?  Kass's ideas were a columnist riffing on an idea.  I don't pay much heed to them. However, the notion of a license or bicycle tag could become a reality.  I think Rahm knows that in general you can't squeeze too much from cyclists but you could probably squeeze this. The only thing that may hold back such licensing is the question of whether it would make us "intended users" In that sense could it possibly be a good thing? We are licensed. We are a reality. We are part of the roadway.  Hmm...I stopped after typing this and wondered if this is done over the pond.  Apparently not.  I googled and this was one of the first hits I got. http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/03/folly-of-bicycle-licences.html

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?

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.

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!

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

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!

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

That's pretty much how canoe registrations work. You pay $13 for a sticker, and if you don't a really bored warden might write you a ticket.

Charlie Short said:

I wasn't being facetious. ATV's and Boats are motorized, and generally, high-ticket, high sales tax items. Canoes and Kayaks are limited use, and can both use waterways equally. Bikes are currently not an intended road user in Illinois and don't use the road in the same way that cars do. Illinois law enforcement could not keep up with regulating bikes.

It was suggested to me that bikes get licensed like dogs, in that you renew yearly and only pay a fine (for non-compliance) when you break the law. My impression is that CPD (and other districts) don't want to waste their time with this kind of piece-meal ticketing.

RSS

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service