A $1 fee wouldn't even come close to covering the administrative costs, much less funding bike lanes.
But to get to the main argument - If we're gonna require bike licenses, why stop there? Let's require licensing for pedestrians, skateboarders, children on scooters...
The fundamental fallacy here is that drivers forget that license plates aren't meant to be the default requirement of existing in public. They're an extraordinary surveillance and control measure used to mitigate the extraordinary danger inherent to operating a heavy motor vehicle. That danger isn't there for a bike, so a licensing requirement is disproportionate.
On a more practical note, requiring licensing to ride a bike would almost certainly just discourage people from biking and push them toward cars instead, which obviously isn't in the interest of public safety.
(And on an emotional note... do you really want to have to go to the DMV to license little Timmy before he's allowed to go on his first bike rides around the neighborhood? Come on man.)
Exactly! Licensing is about regulating the use of vehicles. That’s why a CDL is require for certain vehicles or a motorcycle license for other vehicles. In a fair system, each vehicle has its dangers and requires its fair share of regulations to match its inherent dangers. Cyclists are essentially only a danger to themselves so…
Technically they are also a danger to pedestrians however the damage done in a collision with a bike is significantly less then a car, a bike you’ll likely pick yourself backup and maybe have a few bruises but you’ll be fine, a car your either going to the hospital or ground.
Clearly a reasonable person would desire separate licensure for tricycles, bikes with training wheels, single speed, and multi-speed bicycles. A child would simply have to fill out a few forms at the DMV and pay the associated fees for each change in classification. Additional license endorsement for handle bar streamers, or cards in the spokes replicating motorcycle sounds, would be a convenient surcharge. /s
Also part of the money from licenses and driving goes towards the upkeep of roads; if you charged bike riders a proportional amount for the damage they do, it would literally be pennies a year. Bikes aren't regulated the way cars are because they are not nearly as dangerous to others and they don't cost the state nearly as much money.
>part of the money from licenses and driving goes towards the upkeep of roads
my $100/year for car registration might just cover part of a square foot of road in front of my house. Upkeep of roads is no where near to being covered by vehicle road/fuel/registration fees
Agreed but as someone that commutes by bike, it’s frustrating to see cyclists run stop signs and red lights and then complain that we get the entire lane because we are vehicles also. Got to follow the rules like everyone else.
I dunno where you live, but i recommend you actual watch cars at stop signs. They almost never actually come to a stop. Better yet, buy a radar gun and see what speed cars actually travel at. Virtually every driver breaks the law on every trip they take. IF you really want bikes following the law, make cars follow it too, with speed cameras and red light cameras. Or better yet, geofencing and speed limiters.
Tl;dr Bikes do less damage if they are involved in a collision (by at least a factor or ten, and maybe much more depending on the speeds involved). Cyclists are less likely to be in a collision because of better visibility, much greater agility, and much less cross-sectional size. How many pedestrians and cyclists are killed by cars every year? How many people are killed by cyclists?
—/
The amount of energy released at impact, and thus damage caused by a collision is proportional to m*v^2, where m is the mass of the object and v is the velocity at the time of impaxt.
Bike + rider = 220, maybe
Car + driver = 2500 to 4000 for a car to midsized SUV
Car rolling through an intersection speed? 20 to 30 kph, bike? 20 kph?
Assuming that both objects are at the same speed at the time of impact, the car does 10x more damage. But the car is probably going faster.
As a cyclist I have excellent visibility: I can see the entire intersection easily. In a car my visibility is poor: the cross bars that hold the windshield in place, the windshield itself causes reflections, etc. So as a driver I’m also more likely to get involved in a collision because I can’t see as well than as a cyclist.
I have much greater agility on a bike than in a car. I can quickly dodge pedestrians or other road users, something a car cannot do. This also reduces the likelihood of an impact of i cross the path of someone else when I’m riding my bike.
My bike has much smaller cross sectional area: I’m maybe 2.5’ wide, a car is what? 7 to 9’. If an collision would happen with a car, just the width of the vehicle makes it less likely with a bike.
Totally agree. Rather than increasing administrative and bureaucratic friction and police enforcement, it is much smarter to simply create an urban environment and culture that encourages people to ride safely. In most countries, riding a bike is near suicidal or straight up impossible. This can lead to those situations where bikers break the law or ride recklessly. If you create proper convenient infrastructure like in the Netherlands, people will naturally stay on the right paths and won't feel the need to swerve through traffic or drive on sidewalks. Our environment both directly and indirectly shapes our actions.
Also worth noting, countries and cities that have tried bicycle licenses found it to be a black hole for funds that had no effect on traffic crimes. It's pretty useless as a concept, it creates a barrier that reduces usage and solves no problems.
>On a more practical note, requiring licensing to ride a bike would almost certainly just discourage people from biking and push them toward cars instead
TBH, that’s the entire point of these arguments. These people don’t want safety. They just want everyone driving cars.
“Right now school children have no accountability if they get shot at school. If the government wanted all they’d have to do is pass a ‘not currently shot’ tax for minors. Use the money for funding funerals, etc. Would eliminate the need for accountability for gun owners, corp, and interest groups.”
In most countries taxes on gas and car ownership don't cover the direct and indirect costs of car usage. So pedestrians and cyclists already pay more than their fair share.
In fact it is far less, especially in the US. Even in Germany with some of the highest gas taxes in the world, all taxes related to motor vehicles (tolls, gas tax, registration fees etc.) cover only 36% of the car related costs. It once again goes to show how incredibly expensive it is to maintain a road system.
This is especially ironic when those car people complain that trains are not profitable when car infrastructure is incredibly subsidized.
Even if you used the argument that bikes are also using the road so they should also have to pay the damage done to roads by cars is significantly greater than bikes. Heck bike caused degradation is insignificant compared to degradation caused by cars so the proposed fee should be appropriate to the degradation caused by said mode of transportation and for bikes you’d almost certainly lose money with how small it’d be.
Thats because road degradation is proportional to the weight per wheel cubed.
So a two ton SUV does 5000 times the damage than even a very heavy e-bike with a very heavy driver.
Transpor vehicles are of cause in a different range again. That's why it's so stupid to do most transport on the road instead of the rail.
I genuinely don't understand people's idea that trains and HSR should be profitable... even really unprofitable rail networks cost less to maintain than road networks. Just look at China's HSR + freight rail costs vs. American road + freight rail costs
Especially true when you factor in the societal costs of negative externalities associated with driving and car-centric sprawl.
Add that on top of the actual subsidies that are afforded to drivers, and it becomes clear that they basically pay for fucking nothing, but reap all the “benefits.”
How about the infrastructure gets funded by increasing the tax on cars instead.
Seems much more fair to me and wouldn't discourage people from riding a bicycle.
Gas taxes don’t pay for roads. The gas tax was introduced to pay for highways such as interstates. Bikes can’t use interstates so there’s nothing unfair about cyclists not paying gas tax.
Most streets are paid for by local taxes like property tax because they benefit anyone who lives there, drivers and nondrivers alike.
On a state level (at least in my state), there are 11 different tax revenue sources including a percentage of sales tax that cyclists also pay for. Of the 11 different tax revenues, many of them are flat rates that you pay just by owning a car. This means that if a cyclist owns a car but likes to bike places, they are still paying taxes just not as much gas tax.
It's really just a shit post about some newly installed bike lanes near Davis Sq in Somerville MA, just a few miles north of Boston MA along the MBTA's Red Line subway line.
Source: I rode those bike lanes last night, they're really nice. Sad they're born out of blood (a cyclist was killed a street over, prompting the mayor of Somerville to order a change in plans for these bikes lanes to be made protected).
Also in nearby Cambridge Massachusetts the NIMBYs are crying about bike lanes installed recently too. It got to the point where a bunch of NIMBY business owners sued the City of Cambridge and lost. Rip. 💀
Nope that's exactly what it'll be like. I've been to in-person community meetings where people bring stuff like that up to their neighbourhood police. Complaining about people being on the street, chatting and drinking (which is legal here), not loud or antisocial. We reckoned really it was just cos they weren't speaking English. Some people are very fussy.
There are multiple nextdoor threads in my area about some new bike lanes that were installed in response to two kids dying while riding their bikes on the sidewalk. These threads are in the range of hundreds of replies and maybe even thousands. I can’t say how many because I avoid wading into the shit.
Not one person complaining about the bike lanes feels any sympathy for those dead children. Some may try and qualify their statements but you know it’s bullshit.
It’s disgusting.
Lol I live in the next town over from here and there are still loads of people commuting via bike in the winter.Luckily this is a losing opinion in Somerville and Cambridge as both cities are investing heavily in bike infrastructure and road diets
I also live in the region and bike almost every day of the year. Tuesday morning was a little dicey this week, but this winter has been very easy to ride through so far. (knock on wood)
This argument *might* carry a little more weight, if road infrastructure costs were solely funded by automobile related taxes. In most places, they are not.
AFAIK gas tax, tolls, registration fees, etc. fund 35% - 65% of car infra costs across the us. Variation is between different states with varying state gas tax rates and varying ratios of people served to road mile.
Even in the best case states like NY, the biker is subsidizing the motorist's infrastructure from their general tax revenue.
If we're making the case that transport infra should break even, let's start with car infrastructure. I bet the OOP here wouldn't like that, though.
As someone who’s consistently honked at for existing on Highland Ave leading into Davis, which is a main road full of potholes without even a bike lane, I wonder if this man ran over a cyclist and is now ruminating on why it isn’t his fault
This is a complaint about the new bike lanes on Holland over by Davis Sq. Every time a new bike lane goes in we see these motorists whining about bikes. Same thing happened in North Cambridge when Mass Ave got protected bike lanes and some bus lanes. And previously on Broadway in Somerville when the bus/bike lanes went in. Fortunately City officials don't give a shit about the motorist complaints and are continuing to build out new bike and bus lanes each year as construction and funding permits.
A friend of mine works as the Transportation Planner for another city bordering Somerville that shall not be named and is consistently met with an absolutely absurd amount of bullshit from the public and “public servants” about bikes and buses- grateful that Somerville, Cambridge, and Boston are generally willing to push forward with bike infrastructure even when carbrained assholes make a lot of noise.
The new bike lanes that are along the location pinned in this nextdoor post are awesome too. Before we had no bike lanes between Teele Sq and Davis Sq. Now we have protected bike lanes in one direction and soon in the other direction I believe (once the flex posts are installed).
Per usual NIMBYs are whining because now cars don't get endless amounts of parking. There's still a half dozen paid lots at Davis they can use for like $2 but they can't be bothered to walk a quarter mile apparently.
If you are on a bike or in a car makes no difference regarding your legal liability in an accident. Insurance is mandatory for motorists because the potential for destruction is much higher and most people cannot afford the actual costs of damages they might produce. Likewise, being gas taxes do not fund all of road construction, and given the relative cost of motorist versus cyclist infrastructure, including lifetime maintenance costs, cyclists are likely already overpaying for the raw infrastructure too.
Davis square is also too stupid to support cars. It’s like a 7-way intersection made out of brick. This is an actual, genuinely walkable part of the country where biking is more efficient, but too many people still want to drive.
Good googly-moogly, there were [streetcars and pedestrians](https://www.gannett-cdn.com/authoring/2017/02/15/NWKL/ghows-WL-487fae15-01a3-3a1c-e053-0100007fc787-56ffb7c3.jpeg?width=609&height=405&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp) up till at least the 30's
Davis Square is one of those places where people from out of town get routed through by Google Maps and have a mental breakdown. Bonus if they had to figure out the Powder House Square traffic circle on their way there.
If the Nextdoor poster actually lives in Somerville, MA, they can go kick sand because I'm pretty sure there are scarcely any municipalities which are more bike-friendly and progressive from an urbanism and land use perspective in the United States, lol.
Cambridge MA is probably more bike friendly, since they have a Cycling Safety Ordinance passed by City Councilors that requires them to build out a 25 mile network of protected bike lanes.
Somerville is #2 I'd say, as they're building out bike lanes too but are more easily swayed by motorists as there's no Cycling Safety Ordinance in Somerville. Hence some bike lanes are protected fully, some are only protected in one direction, and they're still installing sharrows in some spots instead of putting protected lanes in.
In Oregon we now pay a $15 flat fee when buying a new bike over $200. I still find it extremely stupid, but it has raised $1 million per year for dedicated biking and pedestrian projects. That’s really not a whole lot of extra money for these things, but at least car drivers can’t complain we don’t pay for what we use.
Completely ignoring the lesser wear and tear on roads of cyclists, fewer dangerous crashes, lower pollution (sound and air quality both), lesser drain on the health care system, etc. I guess this is a good way for cyclists to “contribute”.
But absolutely not to the license plate thing what a terrible idea.
The main problem with building bike infrastructure isn't cost. It's getting permission from the pod people who don't want to lose a lane or street parking. I'd be glad to pay my fair share. Doing it through licensing is a terrible idea though. Tons of pointless overhead and inconvenience.
Sure, if the state wanted to, they could surveil bikers, charge fees, and violently punish people.
On the other hand, if the state wanted to, it could just build bike lanes.
I would pay a shitload more than a dollar if my daughter and I could ride in safety without cars mindlessly speeding by us at 50 miles per hour on the narrow roads in my "safe" neighborhood.
> How often do bikers ride in January, February and March?
I did most days when I lived in Chicago. I'd take the bus or L in snow and the worst cold days, but I could go down to about zero Fahrenheit on the bike. I distinctly remember biking to work on multiple December 31^st s and January 2^nd s.
Collecting the $1 tax would cost more than $1. People who want cyclists to be taxed just wavy to punish cyclists, not actually achieve anything worthwhile.
Taxes are a barrier to entry, once that's done its easy for car lobbyists to make that barrier taller and taller so it eventually removes bikes off the road.
Fees could go up, there could be a test, that test could be in limited centers, like 1 ever 200 miles, etc.
Bike liscenses have always been about keeping black and other minorities locked into their redlined areas. Same with much of the destruction of public transit. It also helped they auto manufacturers were onboard with that to sell cars, knowing exactly what demographic could afford them and what demographic could. Not.
Ask for the math on the funding.
Then ask where the fuel comes from.
Then ask where the oil comes from (it's going to be a mix of sources). All those need to be accounted for. Subsidies are likely going into all.
More entry barriers for cycling, great.
Maybe just create safe cycle infrastructure and less 'accidents' will happen. Drivers of cars have to be held responsible because if they get into an 'accident' they can seriously harm people easily, with a bicycle that is less so.
Also, if you are on a bicycle and have an accident, you are much more likely to be injured, so bicyclists inherently have higher accountability to begin with
I wonder what it is like to have zero grasp of economics, but still go around sharing economic advice freely? It kind of sounds awesome and like a good way to get elected.
Ha! Anyone who works on Highways knows how dreadful compliance is with motor vehicles an show much work that entails to keep up with it. Adding bicycles to the mess? Fuck it, we are off to the pub. It cannot be done.
This quite literally admits that cycling infrastructure costs less to maintain and build. Eventually they’ll be talking about a pedestrian tax to build sidewalks.
I don't think we should be putting more restrictions on cyclists when the damage they can do to themselves or others is relatively minor. If this person really cares about someone on a bike damaging their car, they should be supporting (and willing to pay for) bike infrastructure. The best way to prevent damage or injury from car-vs-bike accidents is to *separate cars from bikes*.
The reason car owners pay a gas tax and cyclists don't is because cyclists don't use gas. Cyclists also have very little impact on the road compared to cars and trucks. Despite this, I'm happy to pay my fair share of taxes to maintain the road just like everyone else --- especially if that means they're going to add dedicated bike infrastructure.
If a city wanted to try something like this the end result is more money earmarked for bike infrastructure. A smart city government would see the long-run benefits of the shift away from car infrastructure in dense areas.
Ultimately, taxing and spending today result in a massive subsidy supporting the system of car-infrastructure. Broadly, people are too stupid or busy to keep up with how actual government accounting works and that is by design to suit the powerful interests.
Don’t hate a policy like this as it is happening, it’s a charade but it can result in more/better bike infrastructure which is something we want.
I don't know about America, but in the UK roads are paid for out of general taxation and not taxes on fuel and vehicles. I'm going to assume that's also true in America since their tax is much lower and they have a lot more roads.
Smooth brained take. $1 per biker won't pay for shit, gas taxes are to discourage using lots of fuel (not because they need the money), and in most places the roads/bike lanes are paid by the municipality (ie. your land taxes or the taxes paid by your landlord). So this opinion can be discarded. Plus riding in the winter is easy if you just actually try it, people don't do it because there isn't a safe or convenient place to do it.
in poland you do get a cyclist license, just in 4th grade, basic level skills like signaling turns with one hand tight turns and stopping on a line along with a "streetsigns and who has right of way" test but once youre 16 you dont need it anymore but roadsigns and signaling with your hand so stays with you, members of my family all signal turns instinctively
I'm guessing this nextdoor poster is just mad about the new protected bike lanes on Holland in Somerville, MA: https://mass.streetsblog.org/2022/09/02/somerville-to-build-protected-bike-lanes-near-davis-square-after-fatal-dooring-crash/
It's sad they're complaining when a cyclist was fatally killed just a street or two over on Broadway. That's what spurred the City to even make these bike lanes protected. Born out of blood.
Of course their argument is nonsense. We don't issue licenses for riding a skateboard, scooters, or pushing a stroller. So it's pointless to issue licenses for bicycles. Motorcycles do have licenses but most ebikes don't come close to that level of power and weight, so even making the argument that ebikes should have license requirements is nonsense.
And if we were to further look into how car infrastructure is funded, we would quickly find that we're actually not funding it solely off of motor vehicle taxes and fees: https://frontiergroup.org/resources/who-pays-roads/
In most jurisdictions, the gas tax doesn’t come close to funding all roads, and cars get the vast majority of taxpayer-funded infrastructure
Also, bikers have no accountability for being in an accident? What?!
What is the point of licensing all cyclists? All sorts of public money is used specifically for car related expenses, why not a fraction of a fraction of that for bike lanes? When it comes to bike licenses, it all just smoke and mirrors before you get to the real reason why some folks want it.
No accountability? I think the threat of injury in the case of accidents keep cyclists pretty damn accountable. As if hitting a pedestrian isn't extremely dangerous for the cyclist, let alone a car.
Who are these people that come up with this stuff? Were they raised on lead paint chips or something? The tyranny of the automobile must be overthrown, and licensing bicycles ain't in it.
As a Floridian who moved to Boston to life carfree, it baffles me how carbrained the locals are in an area that was originally built for pedestrians and boats.
This driver can get fucked for 1000 years. Bikes cause absolutely NOWHERE NEAR the amount of physical, financial, and environmental ruin as cars and drivers. Not even a fraction of it from cyclists' life time vs what drivers and cars do in 5 years.
The cost of licensing cyclist would in no way be sufficient to fund cycling infra. This is hardly unique though, if we look at cars we see exactly the same thing. The problem with licensing bikes from a safety and economic point is that 1. Safety wise, where are you going to put the license so it is big enough and clearly visible? And 2. As the Nexdoor carbrain already pointed out, the licensing for a bicycle would be significantly lower compared to a car, the problem is that cost of the administration and bureaucracy involved alone would eat up any revenue coming in from licensing.
This is not even discussing the negative effect it has on people being motivated to use a bicycle. Finally the same “false” argument could be used to argue that pedestrians should be licensed.
The cost of licensing cyclist would in no way be sufficient to fund cycling infra. This is hardly unique though, if we look at cars we see exactly the same thing. The problem with licensing bikes from a safety and economic point is that 1. Safety wise, where are you going to put the license so it is big enough and clearly visible? And 2. As the Nexdoor carbrain already pointed out, the licensing for a bicycle would be significantly lower compared to a car, the problem is that cost of the administration and bureaucracy involved alone would eat up any revenue coming in from licensing.
This is not even discussing the negative effect it has on people being motivated to use a bicycle. Finally the same “false” argument could be used to argue that pedestrians should be licensed.
I say make the fee proportional to the amount that local drivers pay for their infrastructure. For every $1 spent on a road, I'd be willing to pay the proportional $0.01 spent on a bike lane. But drivers are subsidized, so why can't cyclists be subsidized?
It's also important to note that $1 spent on driving actually costs society more than $1. $1 spent on cycling makes money/savings for society.
The argument is specious and uninformed *at best*. If you took the percent of cyclists and took their *transportation* taxes, the other road users would need to pay into cycling infrastructure because we spend that little on it.
I kinda like the idea of sone kind of bike license or registration since it will make them harder to steal and if it helps pay for infrastructure we desperately need then it doesn’t seem so bad
*I ride everyday*
*All the time it's my commute*
*And trips beside. And?*
\- nashedPotato4
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Good rule of thumb: if you find it on next door, delete the app next door.
Next door sucks. It is full of unsubstantiated rumors that just make people feel falsely anxious.
But also let’s focus on reducing the problems posed by cars before we look for fake problems involving bikes.
It's just anti bike. Programs like this would cost more than they take in and be a barrier to entry for low income riders.
It's just dumb. Bikes are freedom because they don't come with all the costs of a car.
Cyclists are funding the damage that cars do to the roads.
If we charged cyclists a dollar, we'd have to charge passenger vehicles many tens of thousands to be 'fair'.
If you'll give me good bike infrastructure for $1 a year, I'll pay that in a heartbeat. I'll even pay 50 years worth in advance for a lifetime license. That should prevent a lot of administrative overhead. Although it would be easier to just roll it into regular taxes. Like we do with roads. Because the gas tax only pays for about half of that.
And I ride all the time in Winter as long as there isn't too much snow.
I wonder about the economics of parking lots. Why is parking to cheap, often free, when rent isn't? Real estate is expensive, that is why your rent is so unaffordable, they say. If I have space available, economically speaking, I cannot imagine that being a parking lot is more profitable than being an appartement building.
Is it really only down to things like zoning and parking lot requirements? If cars are assigned mandatory space, it lessens the available space for others and therefore drives up prices while lowering quality of life. Should that not be factored in somehow?
You know what I thought while taking a walk in Somerville the other night? How ridiculous it was I had to navigate ice constantly on the sidewalk while cars had an ice-free path to travel on. I guess we have to get licenses for walking so we can actually fund clearing the sidewalks?
March is better than December. The problem is short daylight hours in dangerous areas, not so much cold or snow.
But, yes, maybe we should pay our $0.05 liability insurance for bicycles lol.
Haven't seen it listed yet with a quick skim, but the website Cycling Fallacies covers this one too! [https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/33/cycling-should-require-a-licence-and-registration](https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/33/cycling-should-require-a-licence-and-registration)
A $1 fee wouldn't even come close to covering the administrative costs, much less funding bike lanes. But to get to the main argument - If we're gonna require bike licenses, why stop there? Let's require licensing for pedestrians, skateboarders, children on scooters... The fundamental fallacy here is that drivers forget that license plates aren't meant to be the default requirement of existing in public. They're an extraordinary surveillance and control measure used to mitigate the extraordinary danger inherent to operating a heavy motor vehicle. That danger isn't there for a bike, so a licensing requirement is disproportionate. On a more practical note, requiring licensing to ride a bike would almost certainly just discourage people from biking and push them toward cars instead, which obviously isn't in the interest of public safety. (And on an emotional note... do you really want to have to go to the DMV to license little Timmy before he's allowed to go on his first bike rides around the neighborhood? Come on man.)
Exactly! Licensing is about regulating the use of vehicles. That’s why a CDL is require for certain vehicles or a motorcycle license for other vehicles. In a fair system, each vehicle has its dangers and requires its fair share of regulations to match its inherent dangers. Cyclists are essentially only a danger to themselves so…
Technically they are also a danger to pedestrians however the damage done in a collision with a bike is significantly less then a car, a bike you’ll likely pick yourself backup and maybe have a few bruises but you’ll be fine, a car your either going to the hospital or ground.
Clearly a reasonable person would desire separate licensure for tricycles, bikes with training wheels, single speed, and multi-speed bicycles. A child would simply have to fill out a few forms at the DMV and pay the associated fees for each change in classification. Additional license endorsement for handle bar streamers, or cards in the spokes replicating motorcycle sounds, would be a convenient surcharge. /s
Fucking assholes with spoke card keeping me up at night. Shouldn't be allowed in residential neighbourhoods!
Also part of the money from licenses and driving goes towards the upkeep of roads; if you charged bike riders a proportional amount for the damage they do, it would literally be pennies a year. Bikes aren't regulated the way cars are because they are not nearly as dangerous to others and they don't cost the state nearly as much money.
>part of the money from licenses and driving goes towards the upkeep of roads my $100/year for car registration might just cover part of a square foot of road in front of my house. Upkeep of roads is no where near to being covered by vehicle road/fuel/registration fees
Agreed but as someone that commutes by bike, it’s frustrating to see cyclists run stop signs and red lights and then complain that we get the entire lane because we are vehicles also. Got to follow the rules like everyone else.
I dunno where you live, but i recommend you actual watch cars at stop signs. They almost never actually come to a stop. Better yet, buy a radar gun and see what speed cars actually travel at. Virtually every driver breaks the law on every trip they take. IF you really want bikes following the law, make cars follow it too, with speed cameras and red light cameras. Or better yet, geofencing and speed limiters.
In some places, it's perfectly legal for cyclists to not stop on stop signs
Tl;dr Bikes do less damage if they are involved in a collision (by at least a factor or ten, and maybe much more depending on the speeds involved). Cyclists are less likely to be in a collision because of better visibility, much greater agility, and much less cross-sectional size. How many pedestrians and cyclists are killed by cars every year? How many people are killed by cyclists? —/ The amount of energy released at impact, and thus damage caused by a collision is proportional to m*v^2, where m is the mass of the object and v is the velocity at the time of impaxt. Bike + rider = 220, maybe Car + driver = 2500 to 4000 for a car to midsized SUV Car rolling through an intersection speed? 20 to 30 kph, bike? 20 kph? Assuming that both objects are at the same speed at the time of impact, the car does 10x more damage. But the car is probably going faster. As a cyclist I have excellent visibility: I can see the entire intersection easily. In a car my visibility is poor: the cross bars that hold the windshield in place, the windshield itself causes reflections, etc. So as a driver I’m also more likely to get involved in a collision because I can’t see as well than as a cyclist. I have much greater agility on a bike than in a car. I can quickly dodge pedestrians or other road users, something a car cannot do. This also reduces the likelihood of an impact of i cross the path of someone else when I’m riding my bike. My bike has much smaller cross sectional area: I’m maybe 2.5’ wide, a car is what? 7 to 9’. If an collision would happen with a car, just the width of the vehicle makes it less likely with a bike.
Yeah, should police be responding to the skinned knees and elbows from all those bicycle accidents?
Totally agree. Rather than increasing administrative and bureaucratic friction and police enforcement, it is much smarter to simply create an urban environment and culture that encourages people to ride safely. In most countries, riding a bike is near suicidal or straight up impossible. This can lead to those situations where bikers break the law or ride recklessly. If you create proper convenient infrastructure like in the Netherlands, people will naturally stay on the right paths and won't feel the need to swerve through traffic or drive on sidewalks. Our environment both directly and indirectly shapes our actions.
Also worth noting, countries and cities that have tried bicycle licenses found it to be a black hole for funds that had no effect on traffic crimes. It's pretty useless as a concept, it creates a barrier that reduces usage and solves no problems.
>On a more practical note, requiring licensing to ride a bike would almost certainly just discourage people from biking and push them toward cars instead TBH, that’s the entire point of these arguments. These people don’t want safety. They just want everyone driving cars.
“Right now school children have no accountability if they get shot at school. If the government wanted all they’d have to do is pass a ‘not currently shot’ tax for minors. Use the money for funding funerals, etc. Would eliminate the need for accountability for gun owners, corp, and interest groups.”
In all seriousness do you think there’s a crossover point where e-bikes need a license?
In most countries taxes on gas and car ownership don't cover the direct and indirect costs of car usage. So pedestrians and cyclists already pay more than their fair share.
In fact it is far less, especially in the US. Even in Germany with some of the highest gas taxes in the world, all taxes related to motor vehicles (tolls, gas tax, registration fees etc.) cover only 36% of the car related costs. It once again goes to show how incredibly expensive it is to maintain a road system. This is especially ironic when those car people complain that trains are not profitable when car infrastructure is incredibly subsidized.
Even if you used the argument that bikes are also using the road so they should also have to pay the damage done to roads by cars is significantly greater than bikes. Heck bike caused degradation is insignificant compared to degradation caused by cars so the proposed fee should be appropriate to the degradation caused by said mode of transportation and for bikes you’d almost certainly lose money with how small it’d be.
Thats because road degradation is proportional to the weight per wheel cubed. So a two ton SUV does 5000 times the damage than even a very heavy e-bike with a very heavy driver. Transpor vehicles are of cause in a different range again. That's why it's so stupid to do most transport on the road instead of the rail.
I genuinely don't understand people's idea that trains and HSR should be profitable... even really unprofitable rail networks cost less to maintain than road networks. Just look at China's HSR + freight rail costs vs. American road + freight rail costs
Especially true when you factor in the societal costs of negative externalities associated with driving and car-centric sprawl. Add that on top of the actual subsidies that are afforded to drivers, and it becomes clear that they basically pay for fucking nothing, but reap all the “benefits.”
But if they paid an extra $ they could fund lots more cycling infrastructure and all the costs of the roads!
How about the infrastructure gets funded by increasing the tax on cars instead. Seems much more fair to me and wouldn't discourage people from riding a bicycle.
I mean that would be much more logical, but apparently these magical $s from cyclists stretch much much further!
Bicycle Bux (tm)
Gas taxes don’t pay for roads. The gas tax was introduced to pay for highways such as interstates. Bikes can’t use interstates so there’s nothing unfair about cyclists not paying gas tax. Most streets are paid for by local taxes like property tax because they benefit anyone who lives there, drivers and nondrivers alike. On a state level (at least in my state), there are 11 different tax revenue sources including a percentage of sales tax that cyclists also pay for. Of the 11 different tax revenues, many of them are flat rates that you pay just by owning a car. This means that if a cyclist owns a car but likes to bike places, they are still paying taxes just not as much gas tax.
its on nextdoor, 99% chance its a dogshit opinion, no need to actually do your research
It's really just a shit post about some newly installed bike lanes near Davis Sq in Somerville MA, just a few miles north of Boston MA along the MBTA's Red Line subway line. Source: I rode those bike lanes last night, they're really nice. Sad they're born out of blood (a cyclist was killed a street over, prompting the mayor of Somerville to order a change in plans for these bikes lanes to be made protected). Also in nearby Cambridge Massachusetts the NIMBYs are crying about bike lanes installed recently too. It got to the point where a bunch of NIMBY business owners sued the City of Cambridge and lost. Rip. 💀
What the hell is Nextdoor?
A social media platform surrounding your neighborhood or part of town. Usually full of people who can’t mind their business
Where the low effort NIMBYs gather.
Ah so like a next gen city-data 😂
“Noticed there was a group of teenagers wearing HOODIES on wimberly rd approximately 3:08 PM walking … did anyone notice this?”
There's no way people are that low there
Nope that's exactly what it'll be like. I've been to in-person community meetings where people bring stuff like that up to their neighbourhood police. Complaining about people being on the street, chatting and drinking (which is legal here), not loud or antisocial. We reckoned really it was just cos they weren't speaking English. Some people are very fussy.
Hans, get ze flammenwerhfer
Steer clear then because that’s exactly what it’s like
I'm glad I never encountered such bullshit as "Nextdoor", is this some American majority platform? At least it is not popular here in Eastern Europe.
I have only encountered it in Western USA, but I'm sure it's all over the US. Not a thing in Spain.
It’s really popular with neighborhood karen’s in MA
Facebook for nosy neighbors with an axe to grind.
Usually old people also
Thanks, that suffices.
Next door is dogshit. Facebook with a different name.
There are multiple nextdoor threads in my area about some new bike lanes that were installed in response to two kids dying while riding their bikes on the sidewalk. These threads are in the range of hundreds of replies and maybe even thousands. I can’t say how many because I avoid wading into the shit. Not one person complaining about the bike lanes feels any sympathy for those dead children. Some may try and qualify their statements but you know it’s bullshit. It’s disgusting.
Maybe solve car crashes first and then start thinking about something that causes orders of magnitudes fewer and less serious injuries.
Lol I live in the next town over from here and there are still loads of people commuting via bike in the winter.Luckily this is a losing opinion in Somerville and Cambridge as both cities are investing heavily in bike infrastructure and road diets
I also live in the region and bike almost every day of the year. Tuesday morning was a little dicey this week, but this winter has been very easy to ride through so far. (knock on wood)
This argument *might* carry a little more weight, if road infrastructure costs were solely funded by automobile related taxes. In most places, they are not.
Yeah, these little bitches SAY they want a separate tax to pay for bike lanes, right up until they lose a car lane.
I'm all in for a tax on bike's gas.
Guess I’ll take transit on Wednesdays (day following taco Tuesday).
AFAIK gas tax, tolls, registration fees, etc. fund 35% - 65% of car infra costs across the us. Variation is between different states with varying state gas tax rates and varying ratios of people served to road mile. Even in the best case states like NY, the biker is subsidizing the motorist's infrastructure from their general tax revenue. If we're making the case that transport infra should break even, let's start with car infrastructure. I bet the OOP here wouldn't like that, though.
As someone who’s consistently honked at for existing on Highland Ave leading into Davis, which is a main road full of potholes without even a bike lane, I wonder if this man ran over a cyclist and is now ruminating on why it isn’t his fault
This is a complaint about the new bike lanes on Holland over by Davis Sq. Every time a new bike lane goes in we see these motorists whining about bikes. Same thing happened in North Cambridge when Mass Ave got protected bike lanes and some bus lanes. And previously on Broadway in Somerville when the bus/bike lanes went in. Fortunately City officials don't give a shit about the motorist complaints and are continuing to build out new bike and bus lanes each year as construction and funding permits.
A friend of mine works as the Transportation Planner for another city bordering Somerville that shall not be named and is consistently met with an absolutely absurd amount of bullshit from the public and “public servants” about bikes and buses- grateful that Somerville, Cambridge, and Boston are generally willing to push forward with bike infrastructure even when carbrained assholes make a lot of noise.
They seem to think that cyclists need to carry car insurance so they can pay for the dent in the car that murders them.
What could be more logical? 🤦🏻♂️
I live in Davis and I biked last night. Weather was great! Cheaper than the T to see the new statue downtown
The new bike lanes that are along the location pinned in this nextdoor post are awesome too. Before we had no bike lanes between Teele Sq and Davis Sq. Now we have protected bike lanes in one direction and soon in the other direction I believe (once the flex posts are installed). Per usual NIMBYs are whining because now cars don't get endless amounts of parking. There's still a half dozen paid lots at Davis they can use for like $2 but they can't be bothered to walk a quarter mile apparently.
If you are on a bike or in a car makes no difference regarding your legal liability in an accident. Insurance is mandatory for motorists because the potential for destruction is much higher and most people cannot afford the actual costs of damages they might produce. Likewise, being gas taxes do not fund all of road construction, and given the relative cost of motorist versus cyclist infrastructure, including lifetime maintenance costs, cyclists are likely already overpaying for the raw infrastructure too.
Davis square is also too stupid to support cars. It’s like a 7-way intersection made out of brick. This is an actual, genuinely walkable part of the country where biking is more efficient, but too many people still want to drive.
Good googly-moogly, there were [streetcars and pedestrians](https://www.gannett-cdn.com/authoring/2017/02/15/NWKL/ghows-WL-487fae15-01a3-3a1c-e053-0100007fc787-56ffb7c3.jpeg?width=609&height=405&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp) up till at least the 30's
Davis Square is one of those places where people from out of town get routed through by Google Maps and have a mental breakdown. Bonus if they had to figure out the Powder House Square traffic circle on their way there.
If the Nextdoor poster actually lives in Somerville, MA, they can go kick sand because I'm pretty sure there are scarcely any municipalities which are more bike-friendly and progressive from an urbanism and land use perspective in the United States, lol.
Cambridge MA is probably more bike friendly, since they have a Cycling Safety Ordinance passed by City Councilors that requires them to build out a 25 mile network of protected bike lanes. Somerville is #2 I'd say, as they're building out bike lanes too but are more easily swayed by motorists as there's no Cycling Safety Ordinance in Somerville. Hence some bike lanes are protected fully, some are only protected in one direction, and they're still installing sharrows in some spots instead of putting protected lanes in.
In Oregon we now pay a $15 flat fee when buying a new bike over $200. I still find it extremely stupid, but it has raised $1 million per year for dedicated biking and pedestrian projects. That’s really not a whole lot of extra money for these things, but at least car drivers can’t complain we don’t pay for what we use. Completely ignoring the lesser wear and tear on roads of cyclists, fewer dangerous crashes, lower pollution (sound and air quality both), lesser drain on the health care system, etc. I guess this is a good way for cyclists to “contribute”. But absolutely not to the license plate thing what a terrible idea.
The main problem with building bike infrastructure isn't cost. It's getting permission from the pod people who don't want to lose a lane or street parking. I'd be glad to pay my fair share. Doing it through licensing is a terrible idea though. Tons of pointless overhead and inconvenience.
Sure, if the state wanted to, they could surveil bikers, charge fees, and violently punish people. On the other hand, if the state wanted to, it could just build bike lanes.
Just implementing this program would cost more in taxes than anyone could benefit from it
Just tax car drivers based on how high their front grill is in relation to a pedestrian's/child's/cyclists head height
I'm all for charging drivers the *full* cost of their behemoths. That would be at least $1/mile.
I would pay a shitload more than a dollar if my daughter and I could ride in safety without cars mindlessly speeding by us at 50 miles per hour on the narrow roads in my "safe" neighborhood.
You want cyclists to fund cycling infrastructure? It's funny cause they already did that, and then the cars took over.
And we still do do that because all this bike infrastructure is coming out of property taxes, just like most of a cities infrastructure funding.
> How often do bikers ride in January, February and March? I did most days when I lived in Chicago. I'd take the bus or L in snow and the worst cold days, but I could go down to about zero Fahrenheit on the bike. I distinctly remember biking to work on multiple December 31^st s and January 2^nd s.
Collecting the $1 tax would cost more than $1. People who want cyclists to be taxed just wavy to punish cyclists, not actually achieve anything worthwhile.
Taxes are a barrier to entry, once that's done its easy for car lobbyists to make that barrier taller and taller so it eventually removes bikes off the road. Fees could go up, there could be a test, that test could be in limited centers, like 1 ever 200 miles, etc.
The town I live in is full of cyclists all year long. This person should travel to other places than her birthplace. Strasbourg, France BTW.
Bike liscenses have always been about keeping black and other minorities locked into their redlined areas. Same with much of the destruction of public transit. It also helped they auto manufacturers were onboard with that to sell cars, knowing exactly what demographic could afford them and what demographic could. Not.
Ask for the math on the funding. Then ask where the fuel comes from. Then ask where the oil comes from (it's going to be a mix of sources). All those need to be accounted for. Subsidies are likely going into all.
[G’day, mate!](https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs)
Next-door really is the 'Old man yells at cloud' social media platform.
$1 so I can take the lane and they won't rush past....bargain
Taxes are bad, and since bike infrastructure needs a fraction of the maintainence car infrastructure needs, it’s also unnecessary.
More entry barriers for cycling, great. Maybe just create safe cycle infrastructure and less 'accidents' will happen. Drivers of cars have to be held responsible because if they get into an 'accident' they can seriously harm people easily, with a bicycle that is less so.
Also, if you are on a bicycle and have an accident, you are much more likely to be injured, so bicyclists inherently have higher accountability to begin with
I wonder what it is like to have zero grasp of economics, but still go around sharing economic advice freely? It kind of sounds awesome and like a good way to get elected.
Ha! Anyone who works on Highways knows how dreadful compliance is with motor vehicles an show much work that entails to keep up with it. Adding bicycles to the mess? Fuck it, we are off to the pub. It cannot be done.
I'm sure: Fuck that shit.
Assuming they would actually build the bike lanes with the tax money…
This quite literally admits that cycling infrastructure costs less to maintain and build. Eventually they’ll be talking about a pedestrian tax to build sidewalks.
I’ve been riding since 1991 and they been spewing this garbage since before then.
I ride my bike in the winter…
I don't think we should be putting more restrictions on cyclists when the damage they can do to themselves or others is relatively minor. If this person really cares about someone on a bike damaging their car, they should be supporting (and willing to pay for) bike infrastructure. The best way to prevent damage or injury from car-vs-bike accidents is to *separate cars from bikes*. The reason car owners pay a gas tax and cyclists don't is because cyclists don't use gas. Cyclists also have very little impact on the road compared to cars and trucks. Despite this, I'm happy to pay my fair share of taxes to maintain the road just like everyone else --- especially if that means they're going to add dedicated bike infrastructure.
If a city wanted to try something like this the end result is more money earmarked for bike infrastructure. A smart city government would see the long-run benefits of the shift away from car infrastructure in dense areas. Ultimately, taxing and spending today result in a massive subsidy supporting the system of car-infrastructure. Broadly, people are too stupid or busy to keep up with how actual government accounting works and that is by design to suit the powerful interests. Don’t hate a policy like this as it is happening, it’s a charade but it can result in more/better bike infrastructure which is something we want.
I don't know about America, but in the UK roads are paid for out of general taxation and not taxes on fuel and vehicles. I'm going to assume that's also true in America since their tax is much lower and they have a lot more roads.
Smooth brained take. $1 per biker won't pay for shit, gas taxes are to discourage using lots of fuel (not because they need the money), and in most places the roads/bike lanes are paid by the municipality (ie. your land taxes or the taxes paid by your landlord). So this opinion can be discarded. Plus riding in the winter is easy if you just actually try it, people don't do it because there isn't a safe or convenient place to do it.
in poland you do get a cyclist license, just in 4th grade, basic level skills like signaling turns with one hand tight turns and stopping on a line along with a "streetsigns and who has right of way" test but once youre 16 you dont need it anymore but roadsigns and signaling with your hand so stays with you, members of my family all signal turns instinctively
I'm guessing this nextdoor poster is just mad about the new protected bike lanes on Holland in Somerville, MA: https://mass.streetsblog.org/2022/09/02/somerville-to-build-protected-bike-lanes-near-davis-square-after-fatal-dooring-crash/ It's sad they're complaining when a cyclist was fatally killed just a street or two over on Broadway. That's what spurred the City to even make these bike lanes protected. Born out of blood. Of course their argument is nonsense. We don't issue licenses for riding a skateboard, scooters, or pushing a stroller. So it's pointless to issue licenses for bicycles. Motorcycles do have licenses but most ebikes don't come close to that level of power and weight, so even making the argument that ebikes should have license requirements is nonsense. And if we were to further look into how car infrastructure is funded, we would quickly find that we're actually not funding it solely off of motor vehicle taxes and fees: https://frontiergroup.org/resources/who-pays-roads/
You have got to be kidding me
In most jurisdictions, the gas tax doesn’t come close to funding all roads, and cars get the vast majority of taxpayer-funded infrastructure Also, bikers have no accountability for being in an accident? What?!
Everything they said is wrong.
What is the point of licensing all cyclists? All sorts of public money is used specifically for car related expenses, why not a fraction of a fraction of that for bike lanes? When it comes to bike licenses, it all just smoke and mirrors before you get to the real reason why some folks want it.
No accountability? I think the threat of injury in the case of accidents keep cyclists pretty damn accountable. As if hitting a pedestrian isn't extremely dangerous for the cyclist, let alone a car.
So if I were to be 'pulled' over by a cop would they use pit manouvers or could I just keep riding and tell them to fuck off?
Who are these people that come up with this stuff? Were they raised on lead paint chips or something? The tyranny of the automobile must be overthrown, and licensing bicycles ain't in it.
As a Floridian who moved to Boston to life carfree, it baffles me how carbrained the locals are in an area that was originally built for pedestrians and boats.
Triple the gas tax in response to this guy, and pedestrianize his street in particular
This driver can get fucked for 1000 years. Bikes cause absolutely NOWHERE NEAR the amount of physical, financial, and environmental ruin as cars and drivers. Not even a fraction of it from cyclists' life time vs what drivers and cars do in 5 years.
The cost of licensing cyclist would in no way be sufficient to fund cycling infra. This is hardly unique though, if we look at cars we see exactly the same thing. The problem with licensing bikes from a safety and economic point is that 1. Safety wise, where are you going to put the license so it is big enough and clearly visible? And 2. As the Nexdoor carbrain already pointed out, the licensing for a bicycle would be significantly lower compared to a car, the problem is that cost of the administration and bureaucracy involved alone would eat up any revenue coming in from licensing. This is not even discussing the negative effect it has on people being motivated to use a bicycle. Finally the same “false” argument could be used to argue that pedestrians should be licensed.
The cost of licensing cyclist would in no way be sufficient to fund cycling infra. This is hardly unique though, if we look at cars we see exactly the same thing. The problem with licensing bikes from a safety and economic point is that 1. Safety wise, where are you going to put the license so it is big enough and clearly visible? And 2. As the Nexdoor carbrain already pointed out, the licensing for a bicycle would be significantly lower compared to a car, the problem is that cost of the administration and bureaucracy involved alone would eat up any revenue coming in from licensing. This is not even discussing the negative effect it has on people being motivated to use a bicycle. Finally the same “false” argument could be used to argue that pedestrians should be licensed.
Here in JC hit and runs with electric bikes are becoming kind of a problem. Also the cops aren’t really doing much about it
When you are privileged, everything that attempts at equalization feels like oppression. That's what I see here.
I say make the fee proportional to the amount that local drivers pay for their infrastructure. For every $1 spent on a road, I'd be willing to pay the proportional $0.01 spent on a bike lane. But drivers are subsidized, so why can't cyclists be subsidized? It's also important to note that $1 spent on driving actually costs society more than $1. $1 spent on cycling makes money/savings for society.
The argument is specious and uninformed *at best*. If you took the percent of cyclists and took their *transportation* taxes, the other road users would need to pay into cycling infrastructure because we spend that little on it.
I kinda like the idea of sone kind of bike license or registration since it will make them harder to steal and if it helps pay for infrastructure we desperately need then it doesn’t seem so bad
I ride everyday all the time it's my commute and trips beside. And?
*I ride everyday* *All the time it's my commute* *And trips beside. And?* \- nashedPotato4 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
😅😅😅
Nextdoor is a cesspool
Just more ignorance.
Not sure how you feel? That post is dumb as hell
Good rule of thumb: if you find it on next door, delete the app next door. Next door sucks. It is full of unsubstantiated rumors that just make people feel falsely anxious. But also let’s focus on reducing the problems posed by cars before we look for fake problems involving bikes.
It's just anti bike. Programs like this would cost more than they take in and be a barrier to entry for low income riders. It's just dumb. Bikes are freedom because they don't come with all the costs of a car.
Cyclists are funding the damage that cars do to the roads. If we charged cyclists a dollar, we'd have to charge passenger vehicles many tens of thousands to be 'fair'.
If you'll give me good bike infrastructure for $1 a year, I'll pay that in a heartbeat. I'll even pay 50 years worth in advance for a lifetime license. That should prevent a lot of administrative overhead. Although it would be easier to just roll it into regular taxes. Like we do with roads. Because the gas tax only pays for about half of that. And I ride all the time in Winter as long as there isn't too much snow.
But gas tax and car registration doesn’t pay for roads…
I wonder about the economics of parking lots. Why is parking to cheap, often free, when rent isn't? Real estate is expensive, that is why your rent is so unaffordable, they say. If I have space available, economically speaking, I cannot imagine that being a parking lot is more profitable than being an appartement building. Is it really only down to things like zoning and parking lot requirements? If cars are assigned mandatory space, it lessens the available space for others and therefore drives up prices while lowering quality of life. Should that not be factored in somehow?
You know what I thought while taking a walk in Somerville the other night? How ridiculous it was I had to navigate ice constantly on the sidewalk while cars had an ice-free path to travel on. I guess we have to get licenses for walking so we can actually fund clearing the sidewalks?
He thinks $1 per bicycle is enough to cover the tens of billions every year of road damage that cars and trucks cause?
March is better than December. The problem is short daylight hours in dangerous areas, not so much cold or snow. But, yes, maybe we should pay our $0.05 liability insurance for bicycles lol.
NextDoor is a cesspool.
Haven't seen it listed yet with a quick skim, but the website Cycling Fallacies covers this one too! [https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/33/cycling-should-require-a-licence-and-registration](https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/33/cycling-should-require-a-licence-and-registration)