License Plates for Bicycles?

Mount a Laptop Computer to Your Bicycle Handlebar

http://www.bikerumor.com/2009/08/04/mount-a-laptop-computer-to-your-bicycle-handlebar/

Actually, he is talking about someone walking carrying their laptop computer with them, not a bicyclist with a computer, who was almost run down by a bicyclist they claimed was doing about 40 mph. He finds that carrying a lap top computer with you when walking somewhere is implausible or at least a very poor and unlikely decision choice. In addition, he feels the 40 mph on a bicycle is also implausible, or at least exaggerated. And the jist of it, in his opinion, was that the pedestrian was at fault for being in the path of oncoming bicycle traffic (obviously this doesn't reflect the traffic laws that apply to bicyclists, but many people feel they have a better perspective on such things than the laws presents).

Another option is to use camera phone to take a picture of the bicyclist and report him to the police as this would constitute a vehicular hit and run (have them take a full incident report). They might not catch him, but if he is so brazen about violating vehicle codes he will likely do it again eventually hurt someone enough that the police must take it seriously and they can arrest him on multiple counts of hit and run, prosecution of which can result in serious jail time plus courts can require restitution also, and possibly require he carry liability insurance in the future if he plans to ride a bike. I suspect a few months in jail or prison would change his perspective on according pedestrians the right of way.

My mobile has no camera......I like it just the way it is.

I do not see such skullduggery as a reason to go and buy a new phone, a license plate number I can read and remember/write down.....thats how its done with cars and motorbikes.....just adding pushbikes is no big deal.

I am sure that the police will welcome being given a license plate number.....

Just curious, when you were nearly hit by that bike, did you get the plate number?

I can understand this in a country where bicycles are a primary mode of transportation for much of the population. The problem with doing something like this in New Jersey, or any other state in the US, is that the vast majority of bicycle riders are little kids riding around in their neighborhoods.

Even when laws like this sound like a good idea, the authorities manage to completely screw up the implementation. With this law, I could well imagine that adult riders in cities would go largely ignored, due to the difficulty in catching them, while neighborhood sweeps by police going after the easy money that could be generated by unlicensed kiddies would become commonplace.

Not unsurprisingly, it appears as if some of the politicians here still aren't listening. Cuts must be made across the board and spending must be reigned in..........not government coming up with new ways to separate us from our money through new taxes, fees, regulations, etc.

Of cource it is done in Chia also but only registered no fee.

To encourage the use of non-poluting transport.

There you will notice the Bicycle track everywhere.

If fee is charged then you have to provide all the facillities to use it throughtout the country.

To encourage polution free travel and by the way regular exercise. Most of the users will not need Gyms for keeping healthy.

How much revenue can be raised from poor people? The will come the pedesrians who will need all this.

Let them live here.

In Holland there are cycle pathways wherever there is a road, and some of the lisence money collected goes to the upkeep of these!

Xanasax

How often does a bicyclist actually cause property damage? Most accidents involving bicycles are caused by drivers not paying attention or thinking that they own the road. Most cyclist already have a plate on a vehicle. I have 4 vehicles licensed in my name. Bicycles do not cause any wear and tear on the road. This proposal just furthers my belief that nothing good comes from New Jersey.

I believe that is an oversimplification or misinterpretation. Any moving load on a road surface causes some damage. Also, depending on the bicyclist, they do cause property damages, they tend to cut across lawns, and ride on non bicycle specific facilities, sidewalks, and other facilities. They also use facilities like crosswalks which cause wear and tear, above that caused by the local pedestrians usage. I think it would be more appropriate to say bicycles casue relatively minimal damage in comparison to cars, and the cost of the damage cause may be negligible in relation.

The road will crumble and disintegrate due to weeds growing thru it before you will ever notice any wear from a bicycle.

Not true. The crumbling and cracking in roads is in part due to the wear and tear from traffic loads such as bicycles. As is the loose gravel and surface wear. If the road was designed for bicycle loads, like most bike paths, it will need resurfacing within a few years. A road will not have weeds growing through it until you have substantial cracking that allows seeds to gather and water draining into the cracks. Even then, most roads are sterilized on the subgrade prior to placement of the pavements. I have had roads that failed after construction (due to improper construction quality control, cheaper during construction doesn't always save the contractor money in the long run), where they have cracks as large as your arm open for over 5 years (while everyone fights over them) and no weeds grow at all. On the other hand, I know of a number of bike paths that have to be resurfaced routinely every 5 year (typical) as the gravel loosens and surface becomes roughened. Especially in locations where bikes stop and start you see wear pits start to form in the asphalt, as the surface wear faster in these locations.

T%hen you haven't been reading here about somone who had several ribs broken have you?

Don't forget, in 2009 there were 630 bicycle rider deaths in the USA.

So, that number right there tells us that more legislation is needed and right now. Or does it?

I am not trivializing human life, but this isn't an epidemic. Just for comparison, 544 people in the US died from tuberculosis in 2007 (last year I can find data). Where is the outrage for that? What about more laws? Should we license TB carriers? Of course not.

I am sorry about someone's broken ribs, but that does not make it a national crisis and this issue (licensing for bicycles) just isn't that big compared to other problems we face.

Actually, we don't license identified carriers of highly infectious air-borne diseases, we isolate them from others until they are no longer infectious to others.

I think the real question is how many incidents relative to the total number of man hour spent on a bicycle. Considering most people don't ride very often or very far, relative to automobile travel, it might seem different when you can compare in a more apples to apples evaluation.

I'm really disappointed AH. A source from 2000.

Here's one from 2010-2009. It shows a 44% increase in bike riders since 2000. It also shows that in the top 70 biggest cities it has increased 62%. NYC say a 29% increase. Portland had a 230% increase with over 5% of there commuters bike riders.

In NYC between 2009 and 2010 there was a 36% increase of commuter bicyclists from 158,000 to 186,000. That's communiters not include recreational riders, and that's NY alone. There rank 41 in the big cities in the county for numbers of commuter bikers.

http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/reports/pdfs/2009_bike_2000_2009.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/26/daily-bike-riders-up-28-i_n_551882.html

Some stats from Florida your home:

The Florida Department of Transportation reported that of the 2,983 vehicle crash fatalities in Florida in 2008, 502 were pedestrians and 118 were bicyclists. During the same period, there were 128,162 vehicle crash injuries, where 7,878 were pedestrians and 4,380 were bicyclists.

That's with Florida having it's two major cities in Florida Tampa and Orlando seeing a down turn in bike riders.

http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2010/Jan/98366.html

Good detective work, John.

What I do not see is if the problem is getting worse. In other words, for a given number of bicyclists (i.e., 100,000) are the numbers of fatalities going up?

The other claim the data does not support is how a license plate would improve safety.

If the premiss was true that license plates would reduce the number of bicycle traffic accidents, then it would also be true that license plates for pedestrians would reduce those accidents, which we know is a ridiculous idea.

Additionally, we have no data that tells us who is at fault when a bicycle is part of the accident. Specifically, how many accidents are there that a bicycle operator causes an accident (either to a pedestrian, another bike, or motor vehicle)? Then you have to ask, how would having a license plate reduce those accidents?

I am ignoring self imposed accidents where no other party is involved. Obviously, a license plate would have no bearing on such accidents.

Lastly, I stated in my post #176 that 2009 resulted in 630 bicycle fatalities. Given the 44% increase in ridership in the 9 years previous, the death toll is pretty low for the volume of riders.

Yes one article I read state is gone from 15.4 in 100,000 to 26.2 in 100,000 from 2000 to 2009 but that was for Seattle. I was aiming for Florida I guess I could look into it more, but I'm kind of swamped, maybe Monday I'll have some time in the morning.

The weekend is family time.

None of the reach I say talked about licensing, but I'm sure the funding from the license when used to make bike lanes and widen shoulders should help with safety.

You have to do some reach on your own for this subject. I read through a hole bunch or stories this moring and there was one or two stories that would answer your questions.

AH don't play stupid a "license" is not going to stop accidents, but it could reduce it. If eduction is involved, the fund as stated numerous times would help build safer areas to ride.

Safety just means whats your exceptable risk.

As a biker rider if I like to ride my bike. I don't care to ride it with 10 tons of steel flying two feet away from me. So if a license, registration, fee, etc helped reduced my risk of getting crushed I'm going to take it, especially when dealling with my family.

I guess your cool with you and your family playing chicken with cars, I don't know but I'm not. That's why we stick to bike baths and trails it's a more exceptable risk for me.

The numbers you are showing do make sense. Just the numbers but between NYC and Florida only cover over half of the deaths you stated and we haven't even look at major injuries.

Look at the number of fatalities with motor vehicles compared to whats out they that's even less of a ratio then bikes. I guess road inprovements, car improvements, and education under this way of thinking totally unnecassary.

Would you let your child drive a car if you didn't set down and teach him the rules of the game? No requirements to make sure your vehicle is safe, etc.

My guess by the way you attacking the same formate for bikes is your ok with it let your kid just do what they want.

Florida enacted a new law that states that all motor vehicles can not be closer to 36" from a bicycle.

I feel this is a more proactive approach than collecting a fee for every rider and having those funds go into a general fund and pay for a whole lot of government overhead, which my gut tells me that any additional revenue will ultimately be used for other purposes instead of what has been promised.

You might not need a physical type of "license" since TB is covered under the privacy acts in place, but if you have direct contact with anyone there is a data base out there that tracks you. The company whether private or public has to have you screened and vaccinated. So in a way yes people are "licenced" to whether or not they have TB. (examples: schools, hospitals, hospices, nursing homes, etc.)

This was a pretty poor example AH we know you can do better.

Dear AH,

A traffic death in the USA, according to US Government information that is available to anyone on the web, which was also recently posted by myself in the "Left Turn" blog, it costs around $900,000 on average per death if ALL costs/losses are added in.

So if we can agree that the government has given correct figures, we can multiply 630 x $900,000 = $567,000,000.

If we then take all the injured bikers, some of whom will need treatment that may even exceed the $900,000 because of long-term injuries......that would be also quite a tidy sum to add in.

You can see all these statistics here:-

http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm

http://www.fayettecountyhealthdepartment.org/Bicycle_Safety.htm

From the second link I copied these statistics below, they are truly horrifying not just with regard to the numbers of killed and injured children, but also for the estimated costs to the US Taxpayers:-

HEALTH CARE COSTS AND SAVINGS

• The total annual cost of traffic-related bicyclist death and injury among children ages 14 and under is more than $3.4 billion.
• Every dollar spent on a bike helmet saves society $30 in direct medical costs and other costs to society.
• If 85 percent of all child cyclists wore bicycle helmets in one year, the lifetime medical cost savings could total between $109 million and $142 million.
• A review of hospital discharge data in Washington state found that treatment for nonfatal bicycle injuries among children ages 14 and under costs more than $113 million each year, an average of $218,000 per child.

I think that there are enough costs involved with such accidents that ANYONE in the USA who pays taxes, would be MOST seriously interested in improving the situation dramatically.

Please let us all COMPLETELY forget the heartbreak humanitarian side for the moment!! Let us concentrate purely on the financial side.......Also please do not forget that I have ONLY added the costs involved with CHILDREN under 14......if we added in the costs of the adults killed and injured on bikes, we would probably double that sum, if not more!!!

Is it now interesting enough for you?

By the way, you ARE trying to trivialize human life. But this is NOT a trivial matter in the slightest.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Much work is being done on the illnesses you mentioned, but comparing accidents to illnesses is way, way off. They may be treated in the same buildings, but we can all do something to help in reducing the numbers of killed and injured on the road.

Less I feel with regards to TB.

By the way, here in Europe, if someone is diagnosed with "OPEN" TB (the way its past on to other people), they are not allowed just wander about infecting others!!!

I found this on a website for Europe at

http://www.infectioncontrolservices.co.uk/contact.htm

:-

Key Points

Only 'open' (cavitating) pulmonary tuberculosis is infectious to others

Nurse patients with open tuberculosis in a negative pressure side room

Special masks can be worn in the room of a patient with open tuberculosis

Respiratory care, surgery and autopsy in patients with infectious tuberculosis are risky to the staff performing these procedures (special maks must be worn)

Children and people with HIV are very prone to catching tuberculosis

Its no wonder that the USA has a problem with TB if such people are just left wandering about. Recent figures show that its on the increase in some US cities....UGH!!!

Take that argument to its end and what about the 43,000 deaths from autos each year in the US?

That is 38.7 billion dollars!

Using your same injury numbers it inflates to into the trillions for motorists.

Trivializing human life would be spending money on a tiny fraction of people and ignoring the bigger problem which is 68 times worse in magnitude. We are not suggesting that is the case, but your whole premiss is based on "we got to save lives" without an analysis to show license plates would even be effective or that pouring those same funds into another venue might be far more effective.

You don't engineer a problem by just trying solutions ad-hoc until something works. Engineering demands a more structured and scientific approach. The same goes with social engineering.

I don't think that any argument on any level will attract your attention to ANY possible method of reducing the numbers of injured..

We need that one of your "nearest & dearest" is injured before you will change your mind.....

By the way, I have posted the cost of each death on the roads of the USA in the "left turn" blog.....it was a complete cost of around 167 Billion if I remember correctly. Rather more than "small change"!

The USA "flounders" along with certain other third world countries at position 40 in the table. The UK was 5th and Germany a bit lower, I forget exactly......not exactly anything to be proud of though at any position.....!!

And with your "Stonewalling" attitude, in which you are FAR from alone in the USA, I guess we cannot expect any improvements in the foreseeable future.....

Well, I clearly dismiss any emotional argument or arguments with incomplete data. At least I try to. And as far as being personally touched, I'll get to that shortly.

You provide data for a death at $900,000 and we have 630 deaths. While those numbers are big, they are not big when compared with the big picture.

This problem is not big enough to capture national attention because we have bigger fish to fry first (unless a politician can see it as a tool for power or revenue).

While it may be a pet peeve for you and those that have personally been touched by such events, we still need to examine it in a rational context versus an emotional one when we triage all the issues we have as a nation.

I am skeptical because, frankly, there is no evidence to to support the level of attention you are championing for this cause. It is a noble cause, but I see it as a much smaller issue than you and here is but one reason why...

Using the CDC for an example, the leading causes for death in the US are outlined as:

Heart disease: 616,067

Cancer: 562,875

Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 135,952

Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 127,924

Accidents (unintentional injuries): 123,706

Alzheimer's disease: 74,632

Diabetes: 71,382

Influenza and Pneumonia: 52,717

Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 46,448

Septicemia: 34,828

Where does the number 630 rank in the above list?

Let's look at other causes that are worthy of attention. How about smoking? In the US the CDC extrapolates 440,000 people die each year from smoking related causes.

That is also a personal thing for me because I have experience in it. I was married to a girl who smoked. She couldn't stop, but she did finally quit when she died at the young age of 39 years old.

In the US we have a big problem with smoking. It is, in my estimation, somewhat larger than bicycle accidents. My limited experiences in Europe is that smoking is much more accepted than in the US and I can only imagine how badly that issue impacts your social lives in the form of financial health care and the loss of loved ones. However, you guys sure have the bicycle issue covered.

If I seem ho-hum about 630 deaths it is because I have been touched quite personally by one out of 440,000 for that one year. That may be an emotional thing, but the numbers are also vividly stark when you open your eyes to the carnage brought on by something so readily preventable.

I'm okay if you still want to disagree. It's just my opinion that we have bigger fish to fry.

The 630 are only the bike road deaths, the actual dead and injured on US roads are far more than that.......

The bikers are only a part of the problem.

I sincerely believe that the types of junction that predominate in the US are also a possible reason for the high number of road deaths per capita in the US. Far more than any other civilised western cultur.....

Bikers, or at least some of them, because they are fairly anonymous without the license plate, do things that they would never do in a car. Many have alcohol in their blood. Try looking at the links I posted, you can learn a lot.

Smoking is basically a death wish as we have known for about 40 years that it increases the possibility of cancer, heart attacks and strokes. Anyone who does not know and believe this is simply being stupid. My brother in law beat leukemia, but continued to smoke, 3 heart attacks in 24 hours sent him into an early grave, he always knew everything better than anyone else.......

We cannot ignore bike and general road statistics just because some stupid people kill themselves with tobacco.....at least they are doing it intentionally.....

Sorry you misunderstood my point.

Bike accidents are not a high priority because the problem pales when compared to so many other problems. I suspect a Gallop pole would clearly show that among all populations.

I look at your argument as if you were fixated about a blown out bulb on the dash of an airplane and miss seeing the mountainside.

That actually happened and killed all passengers simply because the pilots ignored the bigger picture.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I see it as a relatively tiny (if insignificant) issue in the vast sea of social troubles, you see it as a big issue.

The US averages 750 deaths a year and 58000 injuries to bicycle riders. This are car to bike accidents not icluding any other forms of deaths and injuries that can occur the a bike rider. FWHA records from 1998-2008. Estitmated cost for insurance per year 18.5 billion this is bike injuries and deaths alone by cars IIHA. Lawsuits account for 80 billion a year. Your right this isn't an issue.

75% of injuries and deaths are under the age of 14. Reason state lack of knowledge of road rules and laws, poor riding skills, etc. Less then 5% of these injuries where caused by car driver error.

I guess you don't have kids or else this would be a no brainer.

John,

1. If we are spending 80 billion on 750 deaths on bicycles for lawsuits, we must be spending about 4.6 trillion on auto accident deaths since car accidents outnumber bicycle deaths 57 to 1. At least the lawyers are making out great at an average of 107 million dollars per death.

However, if you see it as a no-brainer to focus on bicycles over auto accidents then you probably would make a great ER doctor focusing on a lacerated finger while the heart attack victim waits in the lobby.

That was my whole point from day one on this subject, besides the fact that there is no empirical evidence that a license plate would have much if any impact on that.

2. Actually, I do have a kid. The difference is we took it upon ourselves to impress and educate him on the laws and common sense issues of riding a bicycle on the road (among other things).

I can't speak to what other people do, but it seemed like another no-brainer to educate the kid so he has the best chance of survival. Unfortunately, most schools only teach kids how to be a victim in society.

Motorsts are of course () insured for such damage!!!!

Cyclists are not in most countries......that must change.

Another Good Answer

Why?

Show me the data for the amount of damage bicyclists have cost that has not been recovered.

Remember that a death on the road costs on average around $900,000 when the WHOLE cost is taken into a account. Some injuries result in even higher costs....

Look at the recent blog with regards to Roundabouts (http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/15515#newcomments) for more details on that......then read below!!!

2008 US National Bicycle Accident Statistics

• In 2008, 716 bicyclists were killed in traffic accidents, a slight increase from 2007.
• There was a 21% increase in the number of bicyslists injured in 2008, totaling 52,000.
• Bicyclist deaths in 2008 accounted for 2% of all traffic fatalities during the year.
• About 53,000 bicyclists have died in traffic crashes in the United States since 1932.
• Bicyclists accounted for 14% of all non-occupant traffic fatalities in 2008.
• Bicycle rider fatalities occurred more frequently in urban areas (69%), at non-intersection locations (64%), and between 5 and 9 at night (28%).
• The average age of bicyclists killed in traffic accidents in 2008 was 41. The average age for those injured was 31.
• 
  

you are right. and i fell into the debate of the merits of licensing and forgetting about finding a solution to a possible problem.

this just goes to show how sly politicians work:

1: create a solution

2: find a problem for the solution

3: distract everyone while you waste their money

The Tooth Fairy should be prosecuted for not filing IRS Form ID10T for all those quarters.

To answer some of your queries:-

1.Great, but how much is not recovered due to lack of insurance or lack of having a bicycle license?

How the heck would I know exactly? Why ask me? I don't live in the USA!! I have posted details of the costs of a road deaths in the USA using US Government figures available to everyone online. If you require more detail than that, learn how to spell "GOOGLE" and do it yourself.....

2.You can throw figures like that, but it really doesn't tell you what the problem is.

Learn how to throw your own then if you don't like the ones from me and the US Government.

3.We don't know who is at fault and why.

You don't know a lot of things it would seem. Or was your opinion that a death on the roads of the USA can simply be glossed over, ignored, forgotten and involves no cost to anyone or anything.....? WRONG!!!!

You have to learn that the costs are there, it would just appear that maybe you don't pay taxes in the US as only someone who doesn't pay taxes would usually be so disinterested....are you even working, because usually, someone earning money will have to pay taxes and should/would therefore be taking an active interest as to what these taxes are used for......surely?

4.Seems absurd to claim that tacking a $10 fee is going to fix those problems. Who are we deluding?

That is probably the thin edge of the wedge. I would expect it to be raised in the next 10 years or so till it covers all the costs of cyclist accidents AND some more left over for the politicians to throw at some new dumb project. I would expect it to go between $50-$100 in a relatively short time. I would not argue against anyone who says even MORE!!

Then the other states will get in on the act!!!! But Florida will probably be the last as they will tax wheelchairs first, more of them to Tax!!

5.All of the above is just a HUGE red herring anyway.

I wonder how you know that point, and none of the others????? Strange! I thought it was obvious to us all!!

6. New Jersey scamming.

Thats just the foot in the door in NJ, wait up!

If you don't live in NJ, why are you jumping the gun? Wait till your state brings it in.... Could take years!!!

Surely you are living in the incontinent retirement state? Does anyone ride a bike there at all? Other than kids of course...

I am sure that many politicians believe 100% in the Tooth Fairy, thats how they get most of their money....only the teeth used come from the general working public, not their own!!! But they are willing to help with PULLING!!!

Its been run like that for years!!!

Remember:- "Those that can, do. Those that can't, become Politicians!"

Just gotta say HeeHee

Nice post Andy.

How's your buddy doing still hanging by the stove.

Just bought another ton two weeks ago because of the cold spells we've been getting now this week it's up in the upper forties. Go figure. Shorts and tee-shirts anyone.

1. Well if you don't know, then we don't know the scope of the problem much less if there is a problem.

It's like some one telling you that your power supply is off. However, if we don't know how much off and you don't know the tolerance requirements we can't make an educated statement.

2. They are your citations that you used. My point is the data doesn't tell us enough to support you initial claim.

3. Let's examine your charge here. First, no one wants to see someone die. However, we sign onto a risk when we drive. It is totally unreasonable to expect driving to be risk free. The same goes with riding a bike. It just isn't going to happen.

However, we have to determine what is an acceptable risk is for the activity and if we are okay with that. If not, we can determine what it costs to fix the problem.

If, for instance, you want to drive that number to zero, could we afford the cost? The costs go up exponentially as you drive closer and closer to zero. In an ideal world we would have infinite funds available to address that problem, but we don't.

Your assertion that I must not pay taxes is absurd. Nor do you understand what drives my interests. You are more educated than that to make such a claim.

4. What are the unpaid costs due to bicycles? Where is the data? Show me the data to prove we have a problem and the magnitude of the problem. Again, the problem space is not adequately defined.

5. I guess you didn't read the initial post. The question posed wasn't about the safety aspects that licensing would provide, rather it centered about the outcry of financial burden and what would they "tax" next. It even started out with the premiss, "Undoubtedly, cities and states are in great need for new revenue."

The linked article talked about safety threats to seniors, but the original poster's argument centered around financial costs.

While safety is not a trivial subject, it wasn't part of the original argument. So that issue is a red herring 6. Actually, bikes are popular here, mostly due to the weather. Florida has laws on the books concerning bikes.

If you have been keeping up to date, you may have seen the poster with a couple of broken ribs......if the license plate stops some of these injuries alone, I think it will be worth while personally.....

Bikers (with or without Harleys) are a problem.....especially in cities and towns.....

Many do not understand this until something happens to them personally.

Surely you are rich enough to pay $10 (if you move to NJ that is)?

I personally do not see a reason NOT to have it.....if some of the rowdies can be collared.......

Hopefully it will quieten the mad ones down a bit too......with the thought that they might be identified.

At the end of the day, if your state picks up on it, you have a choice, pay and ride or drive/walk. You can then make up your mind for you personally....your arguments will not change the minds of the political animals in your state in the slightest!!

I, like most other bicyclists in the U.S.A., also own and operate an insured motor vehicle. I (we) have the insurance that will also cover our errors when bicycling, and that same (uninsured driver) coverage also pays our bills when a motorist strikes us and is used to pursue relief from the guilty party. So yes, most adult cyclists ARE insured.

>Motorsts are of course () insured for such damage!!!!

>Cyclists are not in most countries......that must change.

why doesnt all of the costs of roads come from the people using it?

They do! Very few tax payers in the US have not used the local, state, or federal highway system.

Even if you never used a road in your life, if you ever bought anything that required transportation in the manufacture or distribution of that product - surprise! - you either paid a direct tax on that product or you paid a premium hidden in the final cost that covers those fees.

Lastly, the government doesn't build roads out of thin air. That cost isn't paid for by zero point energy. Every person in the US contributes in the form of taxes. Even if you don't have an income, if you buy anything, there is ultimately a tax or service fee in there somewhere.

i understand. my post was in reply to #22 that stated "motorists are only paying 51% of the cost of the roads "

Good question. I'd like to know who's the other 49%.

Sorry but your full of it.

If I ride a bike every day 365 days a year to where ever I need to go, how am I paying my fair share for those roads? In PA like NJ roads are paid by three things fuel taxes (both federal and state), licenses and registrations period. The general taxes do not go towards our roads. Why should I have to share the road with someone who isn't paying their fair share?

If you don't want to pay your fair share go ride on a rail-to-trail which is paid by everyone and stay off the main roads.

Actually, I am not.

Let me help you understand. Let's pretend you are starting a business. Let's pretend that you need a delivery van to deliver your widgets, just to keep it simple.

Putting the cost of making the widgets aside, you have operational expenses, too, such as electricity, rent, water, etc. Obviously, you have expenses for your van, too, such as insurance, tags, fuel, etc.

When you price your widgets for your customer you obviously pass on those expenses, no? It would seem foolish to simply build widgets at cost and not make a profit, so you adjust your final selling price based on the aggregate of all your operational expenses.

This means the customers are paying for your van, road taxes, etc.

Even if you ship everything in and out of your warehouse you are still paying for someone else's expenses that they pass on to you, so, you in turn pass those expenses onto your end customer.

It's how free enterprise works.

So, while you sleep thinking that you are not paying for those PA and NJ roads, surprise, you are as an end user of everyone's products and services that you buy.

So, hopefully this will help improve your attitude about who is and who isn't paying for roads. The fact is, we all do either directly or indirectly.

Post Script

I thought I was a busy many, but my hat is tipped to you! Cramming 365 days into a week is an act of amazing efficiency. ;-)

This indirect fees you are talking about are so minute compaired to the fees paid direct from license, registration, and fuel taxes that a person with a motor vehicle pays. As it is the funds coming from those tax structures can barely pay for the up keep and replacement of the roads, bridge, and mass-transit. Soon or later we are going to have to decide if we want better roads or not. If you do your going to have to pay for them. Guess how. With taxes, tolls, and increase fees.

Post Script:.

You must be a busy man, you missed the correction. It says year not week.

If you incur those charges as a business you will pass them on to the customer in the end. When added up they are not insignificant.

It all flows to the end user and anyone that thinks it doesn't can probably find some good economics tutorials on line that will change their minds.

Post Script:

It was days when I responded to your post and it wasn't meant as an insult. I just thought it was funny and worth a good laugh. Haver a beer on me. ;-)

The customers are only sharing the bare minimum of the taxes from fuel and not all of it is transfer to them.

What ever the individual customer is eventual paying is so small into retrospect to the amount that is spent on them for the infrastructure. That's why all these state agencies are behind the eight and can't keep up with demand. We use and demand more then we put in. I say thats bad economics.

Post Script:

My reach isn't long enough to put a beer on you....

By the way, On the lighter side of things... I used to live in the Philadelphia area and given the condition of the roads there, I always felt that the state owed us a refund for their work.

If I had someone build me a driveway and it ended up like some of the roadwork I have seen there I would demand a refund.

PA must have been the inventors of the "Anti-pothole". It seems that every time PennDOT would repair a pothole it would be turned into a road wart of equal, but opposite dimensions.

PENNDOT only handles state roads in Philly thats the limited excess roads. Philly road department handles the rest. If you lived you Philly I'm sure you dealt with them.

If you knew anything about road construction you would understand the reasons for the potholes you've experienced in PA. Considering PA is rank third in the county for number of roads and bridges. Ranked 42 in federal funds for highways, and run about 4 billion in the red each year with infrascture repairs. Ranks 27 in quality of roads. Rank 1 in the number of freeze thaw cycles a year. I'd say PA is holding it's own.

GA

I fully agree to yor point of view.

Thanks

Hi robbump, It sounds like driving where you live is hazzardous indeed, if you tried to do any of the things that you said while driving a car here in England, they would take your lisence off you!

Xanasax

The MAJOR differences STILL being that:-

Motorists are required by law to drive vehicles with registration numbers, displayed on their vehicle.

Cyclists not.

Motorists are required by law to drive vehicles with valid insurance.

Cyclists not.

Motorists are required by law to have a valid driving license.

Cyclists not.

Motorists are required by law to pass a driving test.

Cyclists not.

Now are you slowly getting to see and understand the differences?

Not only are cyclists sometimes rowdies, they are difficult to identify afterwards.....I hope this helps make the problems and unfairnesses more clear.....

And thus motorists can be cited mores trictly by law for violations, and there is greater enforcement efforts against motorists because they can not claim ignorance and there are many options to penalize motorists that are precluded against bicyclists (such as impoundment of registered vehicles, or removal of license).

That is why bikes and riders need to be held responsible.....

In Germany, if caught drunk riding a bike, they take away your car driving license!!! Great move.

Actually, they can do the same thing here in US, though rarely enforced by police. I have only ever heard of that happening to someone arrested for riding a bike drunk in traffic in downtown San Luis Obispo, CA.. I have also heard of people have DL suspended for riding horses on a busy county road while drunk. However, a drivers license is different than a license plate on a bicycle, and not everyone has to have a drivers license to ride a bike and probably won't every be required (children for instance would be a major issue with regards to licensure to ride a bike).

I read somewhere that children under 14 would not be charged (but still get plates and registration).....but don't ask me where I read that.....

Charged with what? As it stands now, a license plate on a car is not sufficient to charge someone with a traffic violation. I believe you may be confusing the intent of license plate on vehicles versus those of driver licenses on person. People fight traffic camera tickets in this same manner, because the cameras many times do not provide a good photograph of the driver, but just the vehicle identification. People just claim they were the driver, and it is not their responsibility to disclose the driver or if they even knew who was driving then.

Charged the $10 license fee..........DUUUUHHHHHH!

Unacceptable! It is the thin end of the wedge, this way they will know where all the bicycles are, and, on a day of their choosing they will come and take them away from us.

I guess we can expect a Good Samaritan tax next. There are plenty of vices to tax already. Isn't New Jersey the gambling go-to state of the East Coast; what happened to that ill-conceived, resource-leeching industry for supplying revenue?

I think all of you think pay taxes for ride a bike is fine are completely out of your mind.Not allowable any discussion about.-

Please explain and tell us what country you are from. I understand that bicycles are the primary mode of transportation in some countries and commend that.

It has been proven that muggers love bicycles here in the US and as the lady from NJ stated, our Senior Citizens are frequently threatened by the idiotic riders assuming that the streets and sidewalks belong to only the rider.

At least automobile drivers only use sidewalks when trying to avoid an errant cyclist or may have imbibed too much.

I am not aware of a plan to require a drivers license for a bicycle, so not sure how this licensure of the bike would stop diiots from causing a nuissance on sidewalks and such. It really only allows them to identify stolen property, if the people using the bike are dumb enough not to remove the sticker (so meth or heroine addicts).

I think you are missing some points here:-

1) The rowdies would be identified by the license number, just like cars are today. Then they either have to lose the bike by saying it got stolen, or 'fess up!! Exactly the same as with rowdy car drivers......At this time, rowdies on bikes are difficult to identify fully, almost impossible in fact!!

2) The license number would be held in the vehicle licensing Office's computer, together with the serial number stamped on every bike frame, usually under the crank and therefore difficult to remove or change. Perhaps you have never looked there?.....just like cars are identified together with the chassis number and their license number.....otherwise how would you be able to identify stolen cars with a changed license plate? Changing a stamped in serial number is a difficult operation, hardly worth doing on most bikes I feel....

3) Nobody mentioned NEEDING to take a test (some people said it might be a good idea though I believe !!), some of us mentioned that in some countries, children are trained by the Police in school time at school.....and get some sort of recognition for passing the test there.....sticker or a piece of paper....or whatever...

But for adults, I have never heard of any such requirement, but again, it might be a good idea.........

If the $ was guarantied to be put towards bike paths I would have no problem with paying $10 a year to ride my bike. But like any other government program most of the $ wouldn't go where it was supposed to go. You'd be better off making a donation to your local biking organization like we have here. trailnet.org

And if anyone is interested there is a national data base for registering your bike available in the USA. Most people wouldn't bother prosecuting someone for stealing their bikes. But both of mine are where rather pricey so I protect them in every way I can.

National Bike Registry

I agree.

If we claim that only revenue raisers [taxpayers] be supplied the facillities then leave all those areas where no or lower revenue is generated to get any road or only muddy pavementsn no hospitals, no schools, no clean water .... not a right to live in this country.

Then the basic rights have to be ammended.

Revenue is for all the citizens basic rights not only for those who have cars.

First off i hope the assemblywoman has a large constituency of seniors citizens that put her in office. Or she won't be in office long. A lot of the bicycles in the USA are used by children. After parents start footing the bill on this. She don't have a prayer to get re-elected.

I like to see the out cry as they tell the parents that they have to put a license plate on their 5 year old's trike or big wheel. To ride it on the side walk in front of their homes.

Many of you will say that's not public roads. Okay public roads then. What were these seniors doing crossing the road and not paying attention. That's where this all started. Just because the bicycle has a license on it will not make the bicycle any more noticeable. It will just give them someone to point the blame on and inundate the police with calls. Then comes down to who was at fault if there is a damage issue. Finger pointing that ends up in court and more tax dollars wasted.

On this issue the assemblywoman open her mouth and put her foot in. Only going to come back and bite her in the butt.

I would understand this if as in other countries the major adult population uses a bicycle for their major source of transportation. That is not the case here.

Wow $10 dollars! I'm going to have to take out a loan to cover that.

Are you crazy? Lunch at mpst restaurants cost more then that.

Wow I can't believe people are crying over $10. It's a once and done deal people you get the license stick it on the bike then that it. Their wasn't any mention of an annual registration fee or a driver's license, nothing like that.

OK chicken littles the sky isn't falling.

GA

A good commonsense post, thanks.

Actually having seen many of the idiots that ride bikes around here....maybe licensing Bike riders isn't such a bad idea. Better than the bicycle plates.

$10 here, $10 there, $100 there... It isn't getting better and when you consider that more than 50% of your income is used to pay a tax in some form or another how long or much are you willing to give to the government before they get too much in your mind?

Add to that the government always spends 110% of the revenue collected. Feed it more money and the size of its deficit grows.

Perhaps you are of the persuasion that the solution to the problem is to just give the government more money. I feel that a better solution is to cut spending.

At least that is how it is done in a household when the money coming in is < than expenses.

It could be worse, it could be like swedish Taxation rates.

....or German!!

Please tell me annually how much you pay in taxes towards our highway systems.

$1000 maybe $2000 a year. Just a tiny amount for the big pot that needs to be filled.

It costs over a $1,000,000 to do four line miles in asphalt. That's just a top coating. To put in a bike trail in Philly last year we where awarded the project cost $1.7 million for a 4 mile bike trail. All paid for by tax payers who drive not ride bicycles.

Services cost money how do you suppose these projects should be funded. Annual PA budget for PA for Highways 6.7 billion (no new roads, maintenance and repairs only)(it equals ~10% of the structures out there). Annual income from fuel taxes registration, licenses, etc 5.7 billion. So what should be cut? 20-30 bridges on the failure list, or maybe 2-3000 miles of road repair. Increase taxes on one hand, or cut services on the other. Make your choice you can't have both.

I don't think he is implying that we need to reduce taxation for necessary infrastructure, but possibly for unnecessary government related projects. You know the unnecessary projects that bring no direct tangible benefit to the tax paying public (though there may be some future unrelated benefits attributable to spin off information generated during development of the project). You know the NEA, or those agencies that service no regulatory or infrastructure development purpose, and the overpaid contractors that support them, like whole sections of DOD, or NASA. You could probably cut taxes in half just by requiring DOD and NASA to show a direct quantifiable cost-benefit analysis that could be tested and shows greater value in beenfits than cost (none of this stuff about the things that could have happened had this not been done, but the things we know would have happened) in Dollar value to the majority of the tax paying US citizens lives. Also, hold the agencies accountable for their cost over-run, by recovering the cost for employees and contractors repsonsible for managing the costs to mach that cost-benefit analysis. Especially the constractors, projects would get done on time, in budget and to a working standard of quality if the contractors became more financially liable and warranty products for these DOD and NASA projects, like infrastructure contractors have to be. also, maybe it would be helpful if these DOD and NASA personnel who manage these projects couldn't use their position to work towards a highly paid career with their contractors once they decide to retire from public service, something like a 10 year agreement to not take any employment with contractors who services projects they managed (no money in it for them in the future, no reason to cook the books now).

Are you sure he's not implying that, are you having secret conversation together?

I'm sure if that's what AH is implying, he'll give it to me with both barrels.

It just seems all the nay sayers are against this because we supposedly pay too many taxes.

When in fact we don't pay enough to keep up with what we want from the government. Our infrastructure is a prime example. People want a strong highway system, but they don't seem to want to pay for it.

We just had a major gas explosion near where I live 5 people died 8 house destroyed another 23 homes damaged. Cause of it: aging cast iron pipes. Everyone wants them fixed or replaced (even people like myself who don't have gas hook up), estimate cost $3.5 million. They're already fighting on who is going to pay for it and how. Do you ignore it (cost cutting side), or do you increase taxes to pay for it? So which way should we go?

Typically Gas pipelines are not paid for by State or Federal taxation, as those are privatized utilities like telephone lines or power transmission lines. What that explosion likely means is that the private utilities company or local utility district were not allocating adequate funds to O&M. The fees for the utility company's or District's facilities are supposed to be derived from the services fees. If they want to tax people this means the utilities operators are seeking a hand out from government to augment their under-financed facilities. They really need to increase fees or cut other costs than O&M, something like mid-level management or marketing. They could raise a bond, and pay that back. They taxation thing is just a lot of people's response to impending doom, and seeking someone to pauy for their own foreseeable predictable O&M failures.

Maybe someone was trying to use the old Waste Management scheme of extending the life of facilities to reduce the annual life cycle cost and improve apparent profitability or keep the service fees down. Something like that happeneed recently not too far from here up in the Bay Area, and PG&E's O&M practices and facilities are being scrutinized very carefully now by the State. These things happen when Regulators, stop scrutinizing the utilities companies safety practices (which occurred during a time of a lot of wealth coming into the coffers, but also a lot of governmental influence by large business interests).

Something else to consider is that people want a strong Highways system in the places they have to travel, they don't care about anywhere else. this means they perceive there as being enough money to address their needs, even if there isn't enough to address all the needs (their in their minds should take precedent).

The Governor of PA just state that they will help fund repairing the old pipe lines. Take a guess where the money is coming from, my pay check in taxes. But it's fine with me it means that my friends, neighbors, and family will be safer. It could possible lead to my company getting part of the work, meaning more secured income for my family and for my fellow employees.

You wrote, "When in fact we don't pay enough to keep up with what we want from the government."

Well, that is the problem. People will take everything they can get, the government is willing to promise it, but the funds to do it do not exist.

The problem is homogenous in that everything suffers as the system collapses under its own weight. Greece and Spain are great examples where this is happening. Looking at the trends in the US we see the same coming our way.

We are broke, Social Security funds are nearly exhausted, while the spending continues in unheard of amounts.

It would be wonderful to do everything socially imaginable, but the private sector will only float so much in the way of taxation before it becomes economically crippled. Worse yet is raising taxes during an economic down turn. Remember, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

While socially unpopular, we need to live within our own means. This translates to making cuts in programs, some of which may be eliminated, others need to remain. However, everything needs to be put under the microscope and evaluated based on its importance to society and the funding available to drive it on a case-by-case basis.

I do believe we pay too much in taxes and that feeling is held up by a majority of 66% according to Rasmussen when national polls are taken.

Taxes affect everyone in a variety of ways. Increasing taxes, even on the rich and corporations, impact job creation, economic growth, inflation, and the end user cost of goods. There is no free lunch.

While you may be in a position to absorb higher taxes, the economy and many other individuals can not.

My feeling is that if you feel under taxed, there are no laws on the book that prevent you from sending a supplemental contribution check to the IRS or any government organization of your choice.

The hypocrisy of politicians that feel so strongly that we are under taxed, screaming to raise taxes, and how the rich can afford it has always been that those same politicians and their supporters have never once written that supplemental check out of their own wallet. Not once.

I respect leadership by example, but no one has yet stepped up to the plate. Here is your chance!

We're talking about infrastructure here and no we don't pay enough into for maintaining let alone improving it.

ok, $1000 to $2000 a year per person in PA (license, registration, fuel tax, ect.) would seem to add up to a good bit. i would be willing to bet that those numbers are low concidering hidden taxes that you may not know about.

$1,000,000 to do four lane miles may be true but how many lane miles or roads are they doing per year and are these repairs based on what is needed or how much money is available or even the political influence of someone that doesnt like the shade of the blacktop.

The numbers are really on the high side. The average PA citizen drives less then 15 miles to work. Registration is ~$35 a year, inspection for your car is ~$25 a year, drivers license is about ~$35 every 4 years. Gas tax is a steady $.40/gallon (Federal and State taxes). Including in the large number of small indirect contributions that A. Hero stated before. Between $1000 and $2000 is about right.

PA has no big new projects on the books right now. Last year the only jobs available where shovel ready jobs. On an average PA is only able to get to 10% of our roads and bridges for repairs.

As I stated before the repairs can't meet the needs. There simply isn't enough funds since the tax cut in the early 2000 under the 2nd Bush; less and less funds are reaching the states for the infrastructure needs. The last time PA increased their fuel tax was 1996. Thats 15 years ago, prices on fuel, materials, equipment, and salaries have all gone up. In 1996 a ton of hot mix asphalt was ~$46 depending on region of the state. Now a ton of HMA is around ~$460 a ton, (according to the lasted awards given by PEMMDOT) its even more expensive for private jobs. We have all these increases plus contractors of course want to make a profit, yet no funding for it. The citizens don't want to pay more, the government doesn't want to increase taxes and they haven't, but everyone out there demands better roads. Well guess what "people" as a contractor I'm not going to give my services away for free. If the "people" want better roads they are going to have to think about coming up with the money.

Wow $1000 per person, that is like every person in PA driving 58,000 miles a year on average, or 220+ miles a day round trip during working days.

some thing else to consider. The people don't want better roads, many people want a specific set of roads they travel maintained and improved. So if you tell them there is this pot of money for repairing roads, they conceive in their mind that that is for their roads they travel. Of course for each person the set of roads is different. so the thought process then leads to overlays on a set of 5 roads or so might be a few million $, rather then overlays on many roads across the state which would be a few hundred million.

At $.40 to $.60 a gallon for gas and higher for diesel it adds up quick.

One question RCE do you live in the North East USA?

Frankly RCE you have no clue what people here on the East Coast think or want. Just like I don't know what the west coast wants. I know for the fact that people here on the East coast when it comes to driving only care about the up keep. The average person doesn't just stick to one road type they use multiple different types of roads. The want a smoother road, the want to go faster, they don't want to be replacing tires every year, they don't want there bridges to fail down. Not once have I every heard anyone politician, Joe Public, anyone complain on how to get from point A to point B unless there is road construction.

Oh I am a civil engineer in California working as a City Engineering Consultant for Road and Infrastructure Improvements. I get to attend the City Council meetings and Cal Trans meetings for those projects along State Highways or ARRA funded, and hear what people complain about when our clients are setting road improvements priority lists. Most people even in the Bay area here, only travel a very few travel routes with any frequency, and care more about those than anywhere else (especially if it is on their way to work). This is consistent throughout traffic engineering. This is why you have to have public input into setting road improvements priorities, and then actually measure traffic loads and frequency of reported incidents. The people want their roads repaired, and frequently misperceive the actual traffic loads as greater where they travel, and lesser where they do not travel. However, they also influence elections, and elected politicians want happy voters so they can be re-elected. You attend City Council Meetings or State DOT meetings you will get to see people complaining about congestions, a variety of safety features (stop lights, crosswalks, bike lanes, etc.), travel from point A to B and the time it takes to get from point A to B, and infrequently about a pothole or something if the roads are in bad shape. This all occurs frequently a few years before the contractors become aware of the potential projects, as engineering studies and surveys must be conducted and then designs prepared. Even astute contractors tend to just learn that the projects are proposed for future work, but not the underlying reasons that set the priority for the project, as they are not associated with the decision-making process. Thus I would not expect the contractors to truly understand how road improvements priorities are set, but that they exist and maybe some second-hand gossip about the roads.

In my experience in larger cities/counties, traffic congestion and safety features becomes a major reason for major improvements to roads, as municipal or county street maintenance crews generally handle most minor issues like potholes, slurry seals and overlays as part of routine maintenance (sometimes there are special overlays with glass products that you retain specially qualified contractors for and striping is usually contracted). Admittedly in some financially depressed areas, Cities or Counties do not fund road maintenance crews (or possibly through some corruption) and in these cases they contract out all road maintenance, so there are exceptions.

So why the complaining?

You know and I know that there is a major deficet you the Highway Funds in both of our states. As stated before PA fees and taxes haven't increased in about 15 years. Everyone ones wants newer and better roads. No one wants new taxes. So what does PA do. Make cuts. No more unnecassary structures like bike trails. Stick to a maintenance only plan no new structures unless there isn't any choice (like a bridge). Close bridges and roadways that aren't necassary. Only high priorty structures should be worked on. So that's what PA has been forced to do. PA been doing that since 2003. You should hear the public out cry, but as soon as its brought up to do what the public wants we need funds then they start complaining about that.

So back to the topic if bike riders what improvements for their safety then they need to come up with the funding period. If you can't afford let's $10 a year don't ride you bike on public surfaces. Pretty Simple.

Not everyone can afford to eat at restaurants. Some people's opinion is based on their own well being. It shows nothing for the concern of those that may have tight budget.

The sky is falling some people just don't know it. Maybe they think they can buy their way out from under it when it comes crashing down.

It's just a 10 dollar tax that does nothing to resolve the issue. All it will do is grease the palms of the politicians to spend more. Also give them ideas on what else they can tax and get away with. When do we complain when the licensing of the bicycle cost more then the bike.

I take to the idea to close the door before they get their grubby foot in.

Why are you worried about if someone can't affors a $10 for a one time fee. If they can't make that obligation how are they going to afford to even get or maintain a bike.

My suggestion to you is to keep that head cover I just saw another piece of the sky fall down again.

I know I know this program would just be terrible, because it might reduce the number of bikes being stolen, it might help fund bike paths, or it might increase bicycle safety. Who knows but I do know that I'm tired off sharing the road with a group of people that feel like the don't have to follow the same rules, aren't safe, and aren't paying their fair share.