Bicycle Licenses

While reading through many codes of ordinances lately, I have noticed a large number of municipalities (especially out in the western US, namely California), who now require all bicycles to be registered and carry on them a license.

Just think...

A police officer pulls over little 5-year-old Johnny who is riding his bike through the neighborhood.

"License and registration please"

------------------
Co-Owner
Bueno Technologies

[weldordave]

Bicyclists have been whining about equality with cars for a long time. Glad to see they are becoming equal in the requirements also. Next comes mandatory insurance, use tax, weight excise tax, federal excise tax on their tires, and an excise tax on the feul they use for conveyence (food). And special weigh stations for bicycles to make sure that the person's weight, number of axles, and tire size is in compliance so the roads and sidewalks are not damaged. Then license plates. If you don't have a place to hang a plate on your bike, they will have it tattoo'd, well, you know where. But, seriously Jeff, the example you gave is the main reason these laws are dumb and unenforcable. Let the press get ahold of a story like that and the city which gave it would be the receiver of many jabs from Leno and the like.

I've honestly found 20+ cities with the bicycle license laws...

------------------
Co-Owner
Bueno Technologies

[CBranski]

There's probably more out there Jeff-Milwaukee also has a law licensing bicycles as do many of the suburbs. Needless to say, they are rarely enforced.

So why is it still on the books? The police often use this law as probable cause to stop suspects traveling by bicycle. The City of Milwaukee also has a law on the books stating that unattractive people are not allowed in public during the day-as a resident and taxpayer, this is a law I'd like to see enforced! http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
Tony Soprano for Sherriff!

[MacReady]

this law is still dumb and waste of time. Only dumb people leave bicycles outside or unlock allowing theifs to steal em. They could put bicycle license plate seal on it to identify whos bicycle belongs to but not registration or license. What next? skateboard or scooter or rollerblade? It just excuse for government to increase control of everything and take profits for those who break the law encouraging court into business.

[Enforcer]

Well, I don't know if it's just in my country, but all the bikes have a serial number on the frame! (It's just not like with cars that they're easy to see.)

------------------
Phoenixes RULE!
Come to Enforcer's pizza shack!

Respect my authority!BEEFCAKE!

[Idnew]

OH please what will they not tax. Now a bicycle. Although some of those bycycle groups that get all over the highway need to have some kind of license they way they hog the roads to vehicles.

------------------
(ô¿ô)Proud member of the Dumb Laws Mod Squad so watch it!*smile*

Attitude Ajustments Gladly Performed(ö¿ö)

My Home Spot (http://members.tripod.com/~freeatlast_3/Doing_Whatever.htm)

Brain Mania (http://www.brainmania.com)

Cosmic Coffee Shop (http://pub83.ezboard.com/bcosmiccoffeeshop)
Meet The Squad (http://www.geocities.com/idnew52/Mod_Squad_Poster.htm)

[bi-blonde]

I'm with Macready, it's just another way to reap a profit

[cleoeo]

It's obviously a matter of Homeland Security. If we're to remain a free and open society we all need to cooperate and register our bicycles. The Wisconsin State Capitol Police could then check all the bike racks on UW Campus, looking for unregistered and potentially terrorist-owned bikes. Shut up and wave your flag!

lol...in australia i can see them actually doing that
here cops shoot ppl then tell them to freeze

[Phreakmeister]

Has anyone by any chance seen the movie "The Mask"? A cop tells Jim Carrey to freeze, on which he instantly turns into one big block of ice http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Do you believe in death after life?

[jettmotto]

i think that would be a great idea here in indiana. because bicyclist ride thier tricycles bicycles unicycles in the country by my house and they ride down the middle of the road so you can't pass and they ride in packs of like 20-30...............don't go busting little jonny for giving his friend a ride on the back pegs, go bust the guys that whining about the streets not safe enough for him and his 29 buddies holding up traffic!

[RayH]

When I was a kid, I used to have a municipal license on my bicycle. I wish they had bicycle driving licenses. Maybe the idiots would put headlights on their bikes when they ride in the dark!

I almost killed an adult cyclist who peddled at top speed off the sidewalk as soon as light in his direction turned green. I was still in the intersection. He looked at me dirty.

Had we collided, he would have been at fault for two reasons: First he is a vehicle in the pedistrian lane and secondly, he did not let the intersection clear. I would have sued him! Really.

[Satchmo22]

wow thats retarted :(

[Freedom]

What next? Maybe we should have to liscense our lawnmowers or snowblowers and even wheelbarrels.

This is just another ploy to tax people for more revenue. Will it ever end?

Maybe we should require byciclists insurance in case you get into an accident with one.

The problem with these dumb laws is that we the people don't have any say-so in making them and they never take in account the constitutionality of them. Once the law is in place they saty forever as you can see by these dumb laws still being on the books. Then it is up to the individual person to fight the government with their own resources to repeal the law.

Freedom

[Phreakmeister]

Just think...

A police officer pulls over little 5-year-old Johnny who is riding his bike through the neighborhood.

"License and registration please"


Just imagine that happening at the Tour de France. Lance Armstrong, in the middle of climbing Mont Ventoux:

"Ok Lance, hold it right there buddy. Get out of.... off your bike with your hands up where I can see them."

[RayH]

Bicycles can be quite expensive items these days. Having a license for the bicycle would help reduce theft.

Having a one or two hour class on the Rules of the Road for Bicycles, even for kids is not a bad idea. I was almost killed on a bicycle when I was 9 years old. I didn't know what a "Stop" SIGN was. I was familiar with lights, but not posted signs.

A lot of adults don't know what the rules of the road are for bicycles. Some think they are pedistrians with wheels. They ride willy nilly all over the side walk. But also, a great many ride on the wrong side of the road in a mistaken belief they can avoid injury because they can see the car coming.

[Freedom]

I know a kid who almost lost his hand in a snowblower.

Perhaps he should have had a liscense too?

Having a liscense or trainign does not mean that that person will operate a skateboard, bicycle, rollerblades or a car in a safe manor. Sure we have to draw the line somewhere, but at motor vehicles operated on public property.

Also, if they may be expensive, but lets not punish the owner of something just because its expensive, punish the thief.

Freedom

[RayH]

Whether or not people will operate such safely is one question. But whether or not they have knowledge of safe operation is another.

A great many bicyclists don't understand that a small headlight is just as important as a flashing tailight. In the morning before sunrise, I pass many bicyclists who have tailights, but no headlights. I know they are somewhere behind me, but I can't see them for a lack of light.

If bicycles want to share the road, the riders should know the rules of the road.

[Freedom]

Perhaps we should have a liscense then just to walk or run down the street.

I've seen many people not look and neary get hit.

Many kids run into the street and get hit, day and night.

Perhaps we should require them to wear orange safety vests and and lights at night.

Of course making parents buy a liscense for their kids andsending them to class will stop all of this, just like all liscesnes do.

Are you going o send a 5 year old to traffic school to learn the rules of the road so he can ride his Big Wheel, tricycle or bicycle on the side walk? Because what is the difference between a big wheel and a bicycle anyway, or even a skateboard or roller blades.


The problem I see is that our government tends to pick and chose who and what to apply laws or liscense to, even though there is the exact same underlying basis elsewhere.

The main conflict then comes as to where the gov't draws the line.

But don't fret soner or alter you will need a liscense for your kids big wheel or skateboard its the American government way.


Freedom

[RayH]

I might have mentioned this earlier. When I was a kid, my bicycle had a city license plate on it! I think it was 50 cents a year or something.

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by RayH
Having a one or two hour class on the Rules of the Road for Bicycles, even for kids is not a bad idea.

We had that at elementary school. We even had an exam for it. I passed it with flying colours (not trying to brag or boast)

[Freedom]

Of course its not a bad idea, but are going to only let them ride if they pass?

Of course the liscensing of bicycles is not a safety issue, its just another source of income for the gov't.

Also the anti-theft concept doesn't work either. For all those in favor for the anti-theft concept, why don't you go liscense or register every single thing you own. You can offer to pay the gov't 5$ to register each and every item.

I'm sure they would like the extra money to blow.

Freedom

[Phreakmeister]

Some ways to prevent theft:

Micro-chip based keys

Free bikes for everyone, just for the taking (no need to steal if you can get it for free anyway)

Fingerprint locks

[FTale]

In Helsinki there are somekind of a Citybikes, that you can take and move around the city. When you don't need it anymore, just return it to nearest citybike-rack ?spelling? I think you have to pay something to get the bike, but I'm not sure that you get money back when you return the bike. Yet, it's not a big amount of cash. I think that's brilliant!

[kontulib]

Originally posted by FTale
In Helsinki there are somekind of a Citybikes, that you can take and move around the city. When you don't need it anymore, just return it to nearest citybike-rack ?spelling? I think you have to pay something to get the bike, but I'm not sure that you get money back when you return the bike. Yet, it's not a big amount of cash. I think that's brilliant!

You get the money back, IF you return the bike. Once I drived from downtown to Kontula. Well, it is stricly forbitten to drive with City bikes out of downtown area...but so what. Luckly I met no polices...:D

[RayH]

If every bicycle was forced to have a license plate like an automobile, it certainly would cut down on theft or at least riding them. The police would immediately have access to ownership information. Too many drug dealers are running around on stolen bikes.

Some people think that just because these things don't have motors, they don't have an expense associated with their operation.

[Freedom]

Originally posted by RayH
If every bicycle was forced to have a license plate like an automobile, it certainly would cut down on theft or at least riding them. The police would immediately have access to ownership information. Too many drug dealers are running around on stolen bikes.

Some people think that just because these things don't have motors, they don't have an expense associated with their operation.

So what's your point?


I think we should change our motto from "Land of the free and home of the brave" to "Land of the liscensed and home of the taxed" or something else similar, because we truly are not free any more.

Freedom

[RayH]

Don't mistake freedom for it doesn't cost anything to operate the country. Everybody should pay their fair share.

[Freedom]

What exactly is your idea of fair share?

Of the bicycle subject... is a progressive tax system actually fair?

Is it actually fair to tax hard working, successful or ambitious people more because they make more money?

The hard part has already been done and many lives were lost to give us our freedom. Of course there is a cost to maintain our freedom, but today that cost can be a lesser expense. And it doesn't come in the form of paying tax and liscense. Those are exactly the things our founding fathers were fighting to get away from.

Also, as uncaring as it may sound, it is not my nor anyone else's responsibility to take care of those unwilling or uncapable of taking care of themselves. Personally I feel fairness is equal treatment of all people no matter what the situation. We should all pay the same percentage of tax no matter how much money we make. If I have to work to pay my health insurance and housing and by my food than so should everyone else. This gov't cheese system is not in sync with our old American value of work hard and reap the rewards of your efforts. We are slowly turning into a communistiic society. Even when income tax started it was only a mere few percent at most, today the max can be over 33%.

This is clearly a "robinhood" model of taking from the rich to give to the poor. America has made the transistion to everyone thinking they deserve a better lifestyle. People love to think or feel they are "entitled" to practically everything.

It's pretty simple though if you think about it all. We are all made equal form our constitution. We all have the ability to make our own decisions in life. Where we end up is all up to each of us individually.

The bottom line is you deserve and are entitled to what have earned in life, not what someone else has earned. Anything else isn't fair or eqaul.

As far as those that may be ill or handicapped, those people would be taken care of out of the charities of people. We are overburdened with taxes, but people still find the desire to donate and that's how it should be. Could you imagine how much more charity would be given if our tax/liscense system hadn't created an every man/woman for himself society. The gov't insists on takig our tax money and deciding on how to waste it. Surely that money would be more accounted for if it was put to use by those that earned it.

At what percent of taxes will people say enough is enough? Maybe when tax freedom day is Dec 30, from the way it looks.

Before we except a tax or liscense you have to ask yourself what problem does that solve. If no problem is solved or its an insignificant one why have it? What has any bicycle liscense really accomplished? WHat does the money raised from these liscenses do specifically for the situation they are being applied to? Look back years ago and compare that to the situation today. If the only thing different is that now you give the gov't money for something you used to do for free then by all means there is a problem.


Freedom

[Phreakmeister]

Freedom:

Suppose you're a boxer. You have two opponents in front of you, and you know that you are only allowed to hit the boxers a total of 10 times. One boxer is almost knock-out. One more punch and he's dead. The other boxer is alive and kicking, in shape, etc. How would you divide the punches between the boxers?

Or say there are 100 marbles, divided over 2 kids. One kid has 5 marbles and the other kid has the other 95 marbles. Say you want to "tax" 10 marbles in total, and so you have to make sure that you get 10 marbles in total from the kids. Would you demand 5 marbles from each kid, thus taking away all of kid A's marbles? Or would you demand 3 marbles from the kid with 5 marbles, thus letting him keep 2 marbles, and 7 marbles from the kid with 95 marbles, thus letting him keep 88 marbles?

Fact is, that in societies, there are certain costs to be met. Those costs are not the same in different societies, nor do they come from the same elements, but fact of the matter still is that societies can only work in brotherhood, to use a worn-out term.

If freedom is applied the way you seem to see it ("I pay tax as much as I want it, when I want it to whom I want it" (exaggerated, I hope)), society falls apart and we return to the society of prehistoric times. Times have changed. In those days, an absence of taxation may have worked, but not in modern days. If you want societies to work, you have to let the strongest shoulders carry the heaviest burden.

[Freedom]

Or say there are 100 marbles, divided over 2 kids. One kid has 5 marbles and the other kid has the other 95 marbles. Say you want to "tax" 10 marbles in total, and so you have to make sure that you get 10 marbles in total from the kids. Would you demand 5 marbles from each kid, thus taking away all of kid A's marbles? Or would you demand 3 marbles from the kid with 5 marbles, thus letting him keep 2 marbles, and 7 marbles from the kid with 95 marbles, thus letting him keep 88 marbles?

As tragic as this may sound it is the only fair way. Equality levels the playing field, it is then up to each and every one of us an individual to set our own course. We each make our own decisions in life and placing a bigger burden on those that chose to do more with thier life does not sound just to me.

I think usage taxes are about as fair as you can get, if you use a government funded source then you pay a tax. Of course taxes will be higher for those that use them, but this is the only way that people can truly voice thier minds on taxes. Lets' be realistic and admit that "taxation without represention" is once again a problem. Sure we are represented but "misrepresented".

Lets now say there 100 cars driving on a road. They need taxes to pay for the construction and maintainance. One person has 95 cars on the road and the other 5. Each pays a tax for every car that is on the road and of course the one with 95 cars has more usage of the road and wuld be paying more in tax when totaled.

Now lets say we have 2 kids with no marbles. They have 2 choices. One, they can work hard to get more marbles or two, they can be lazy and do nothing to earn the marbles, yet every day they will be given a marble.

After 10 days one kid has busted his his butt, because he wanted alot of marbles and the other kid has 10 because he chose to do nothing.

Now tax time comes (because they need to give more marbles to the other kids that chose to do nothing or give the marbles to thier friends or family or just outright waste them because they can) and they say ok each kid must give up 10% of his marbles. Kid one gives up 10 marbles and kid two gives up only one. Even though I don't even think this is fair, considering one kid chose to better himself and the other chose to do absolutely nothing, it is still fairer than a progessive tax system that continually punishes over achievers.

Of course it sounds cruel that other people might not enjoy the lifestyle of the rich and famous. Hell, I'd love to live that way to, but you know what? I haven't earned it yet and when I do finally get to that point in my life, I will be rewarded by having to pay for gov't cheese eating leaches and the likes of them. I thought America was branded "the land of oportunity" because people came here to bust thier butts and make something for themselves and thier families. Although we may still have that opportunity it seems you can do absoluetly nothing and live better than many Americans who have the pride and dignity to keep working an honest job to feed and house thier families.

We now have a Robinhoodism form of gov't. How high do the taxes have to be on the working class or wealthy to make us a communist society?... 50%, 75%, 99.99%

Freedom

By the way when was the last time you heard of town or city residents getting upset because taxes were to low? Why do we people look for loopholes in tax law or write-offs? This is the voice of the people saying we are over taxed, yet our "representatives" never seem to hear that voice.

[Phreakmeister]

I'm afraid I disagree with you on what is a "fair" system. Knowing that no system can be perfectly fair, we'll ofcourse have to look at a situation which equals "fair" enough to be able to be called "fair".
In my humble opinion, a fair system is a system which looks at the situation of the individual taxpayers. This means, that to meet the cost of society, those who can spend more, have to pay more, in order to relieve the burden of those who are struggling. And I can tell you, Freedom, noone is poor voluntarily. We, as a society, as a brotherhood of human beings, have the moral duty to help those who cannot help themselves completely. It is a moral duty that we, as a society, help for instance those who can no longer perform a job due to any kind of illness or physical or perhaps even mental invalidity. Sure, you can want people to work, but total employment, which is the only situation that deals that issue sufficiently, is an illusion. Getting a job is hard, especially in a time of recession, like the one we are in now. We then have a moral duty towards each other to lift each other out of the quicksand, to help those who are already facing a tough time. It is immoral to make the suffering suffer even more in order for the bathing to bath even more.

Besides that, the division of income and wealth are not spread evenly and equally. How many people get paid less than people with the same jobs? How many women get paid less than men? How many directors get paid hundreds of times more than ordinary workers, even though companies can't function without employees, but can more easily function without a board? (In the US, the average CEO makes about 476 times the average income...) How many people live off the wealth of previous generations? How many people get loads of money for next to nothing? (showbusiness, some sports, etc.) I'm afraid you have a naive idea about economic realities in this world we both live in.

Other than that, you seem to have a naive idea of the welfare state. Welfare does not make anyone rich. The welfare one gets is just above subsistence level. Not enough to live from, too much to die from. Welfare does not make people rich, it keeps them alive.


Some more facts about inequality

20% of the world population is responsible for 86% of the total consumption

In The Netherlands, 5% of the people possess 50% of the capital.
In Morocco, 3% of the people possess 92% of the capital.

For only 5 billion US dollars, it's possible to teach everyone to read, to write and arithmetics. That is half of what Europeans and Americans together spend on perfume annually...

For 80 billion euro's (€1 = $1), .15% of world income, more than sufficient social services can be put up worldwide. That's just as much as Japanese spend annually on company trips.

The three richest people on earth possess just as much as the combined national income of the 48 poorest countries...

In the USA, 16.2% of the people live in poverty. In The Netherlands, 8.2% of the people live in poverty...

In The Netherlands, for the same job, highly educated women make on average 30% less than highly educated men

Attractive students have a starting wage of on average 12.4% higher than their less attractive fellow students.

The 225 richest people on earth possess as much wealth as the total yearly income of the poorest 47% of the world population, 2.5 billion people.

Originally posted by Phreakmeister


We had that at elementary school. We even had an exam for it. I passed it with flying colours (not trying to brag or boast)

I had to take the same test, i failed... (took a wrong turn, cost me a few points) but it doesn't matter if you fail or pass, you pass and you are allowed to use a bicycle, you fail and you are allowed to use a bicycle

[dubstyler]

i got stopped at two thirty am once on the pavement of a deserted street in a small town in england for riding a skateboard home from work, when i was 15 yrs old. i was told i would need lights, and to ride it on the road, else as soon as i hit 16 i would be eligible for a fifty pound on the spot fine. wankers.

[dubstyler]

oh and in holland i cant believe that there is a bicycle test, either that or no-one in amsterdam has taken it, i mean the *******s wont stop for anyone!next youll be telling me the french have to take a test to drive a car....

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by dubstyler
oh and in holland i cant believe that there is a bicycle test, either that or no-one in amsterdam has taken it, i mean the *******s wont stop for anyone!next youll be telling me the french have to take a test to drive a car....

It is true. It just has very little effect, because we have our own facilities (special roads and stuff), so we (the cyclists) don't really need to pay a lot of attention to others. And they (the others) pay a lot of attention to us, so we have to pay even less attention to them. But I have to say that Amsterdam is a sad exception to the rule. In Groningen, which is a small version of Amsterdam, it's nowhere near as bad as in Amsterdam.