It's time for bicycles to have tags and registration fees, and pay the equivalent of fuel taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Glad to learn that bikes never hit pedestrians. What was I thinking?

That the overall damage to pedestrians from bikes is much much less than damage to pedestrians from car drivers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Glad to learn that bikes never hit pedestrians. What was I thinking?

In DC for 2012 through February 2019, pedestrians injured in crashes involving a bicycle: 40 minor pedestrian injuries, 7 major pedestrian injuries, 1 pedestrian death (Jane Bennett Clark, in 2017).

In DC for 2012 through February 2019, pedestrians injured in crashes involving a motor vehicle: 2,967 minor pedestrian injuries, 609 major pedestrian injuries, 19 pedestrian deaths.

So yes, sometimes people bite dogs. It's not true to say that people never bite dogs. But mostly dogs bite people.

https://www.washingtonian.com/2019/04/29/how-much-of-a-threat-do-bicycles-actually-pose-to-dc-pedestrians-lets-look-at-the-data/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I kind of agree with tags just because it would be easier to identify people involved in accidents and recover stolen bikes.

But "equivalent of a fuel tax" for a vehicle that doesn't use fuel or damage the roads is extremely stupid.

for stolen bikes you can place a police decal on voluntarily. Most such are small and not visible from a distance, so they won't help with the oft discussed "hit and run cyclist"

Any license large enough to be visible would be heavy and/or awkward on many bikes.

And while I sympathize with any ped hit by someone on a bike who rode away, I don't think its a large enough issue to justify the inconvenience. Maybe WABA should hold a fundraiser to help people hit by hit and run riders.

[Anonymous]

Registered/tagged yes, taxed no. There is absolutely zero impact on roads from bicycles and we need to encourage people to bike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Glad to learn that bikes never hit pedestrians. What was I thinking?

In DC for 2012 through February 2019, pedestrians injured in crashes involving a bicycle: 40 minor pedestrian injuries, 7 major pedestrian injuries, 1 pedestrian death (Jane Bennett Clark, in 2017).

In DC for 2012 through February 2019, pedestrians injured in crashes involving a motor vehicle: 2,967 minor pedestrian injuries, 609 major pedestrian injuries, 19 pedestrian deaths.

So yes, sometimes people bite dogs. It's not true to say that people never bite dogs. But mostly dogs bite people.

https://www.washingtonian.com/2019/04/29/how-much-of-a-threat-do-bicycles-actually-pose-to-dc-pedestrians-lets-look-at-the-data/

Mostly dogs don't bite people, but I get what you're saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Glad to learn that bikes never hit pedestrians. What was I thinking?

In DC for 2012 through February 2019, pedestrians injured in crashes involving a bicycle: 40 minor pedestrian injuries, 7 major pedestrian injuries, 1 pedestrian death (Jane Bennett Clark, in 2017).

In DC for 2012 through February 2019, pedestrians injured in crashes involving a motor vehicle: 2,967 minor pedestrian injuries, 609 major pedestrian injuries, 19 pedestrian deaths.

So yes, sometimes people bite dogs. It's not true to say that people never bite dogs. But mostly dogs bite people.

https://www.washingtonian.com/2019/04/29/how-much-of-a-threat-do-bicycles-actually-pose-to-dc-pedestrians-lets-look-at-the-data/

Mostly dogs don't bite people, but I get what you're saying.

Sorry, you're right. I'll reword.

In cases of bites involving people and dogs, it isn't never the person biting the dog - but mostly it's the dog biting the person.

[Anonymous]

OP, you should be very careful what you wish for. Its clear that you are anti-bike. If a user fee is established on bicycles, you'll begin to see many, many more bike lanes pop up. And I can assure you that bicyclists' contributions into the kitty will not cover the cost of those bike lanes. As it stands now, there's a justification to develop bike lanes using automobile user fees in instances that it would actually improve conditions for motorists, and thus be a benefit for motorists (i.e., reduced travel time, increased travel time reliability, etc). Once you begin placing user fees on bicyclists, you no longer need to view planning that way.

[Anonymous]

Anyone who is different from the OP should be taxed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do I have to register my child’s tricycle?

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, you should be very careful what you wish for. Its clear that you are anti-bike. If a user fee is established on bicycles, you'll begin to see many, many more bike lanes pop up. And I can assure you that bicyclists' contributions into the kitty will not cover the cost of those bike lanes. As it stands now, there's a justification to develop bike lanes using automobile user fees in instances that it would actually improve conditions for motorists, and thus be a benefit for motorists (i.e., reduced travel time, increased travel time reliability, etc). Once you begin placing user fees on bicyclists, you no longer need to view planning that way.

I'm just going to point out here that automobile user fees don't come anywhere near covering the cost of the roads, anyway. But I'll be happy to join the OP in a campaign to raise the gas tax, parking fees, and vehicle licensing and registration fees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you should be very careful what you wish for. Its clear that you are anti-bike. If a user fee is established on bicycles, you'll begin to see many, many more bike lanes pop up. And I can assure you that bicyclists' contributions into the kitty will not cover the cost of those bike lanes. As it stands now, there's a justification to develop bike lanes using automobile user fees in instances that it would actually improve conditions for motorists, and thus be a benefit for motorists (i.e., reduced travel time, increased travel time reliability, etc). Once you begin placing user fees on bicyclists, you no longer need to view planning that way.

I'm just going to point out here that automobile user fees don't come anywhere near covering the cost of the roads, anyway. But I'll be happy to join the OP in a campaign to raise the gas tax, parking fees, and vehicle licensing and registration fees.

I'm the PP you're quoting. You're correct, there's a shorfall -- its very easy to track at the Federal level, in particular, and see that the General Fund of Treasury/ budgetary offsets are making up roughly 40 percent of the Highway Trust Fund currently, but there still exists a user system veil for HTF protectors, of which there is a very active and well-funded lobby. Once you begin taking fees from elsewhere, that gets blown to pieces.

With you that we need to raise the federal gas tax!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you should be very careful what you wish for. Its clear that you are anti-bike. If a user fee is established on bicycles, you'll begin to see many, many more bike lanes pop up. And I can assure you that bicyclists' contributions into the kitty will not cover the cost of those bike lanes. As it stands now, there's a justification to develop bike lanes using automobile user fees in instances that it would actually improve conditions for motorists, and thus be a benefit for motorists (i.e., reduced travel time, increased travel time reliability, etc). Once you begin placing user fees on bicyclists, you no longer need to view planning that way.

I'm just going to point out here that automobile user fees don't come anywhere near covering the cost of the roads, anyway. But I'll be happy to join the OP in a campaign to raise the gas tax, parking fees, and vehicle licensing and registration fees.

I'm the PP you're quoting. You're correct, there's a shorfall -- its very easy to track at the Federal level, in particular, and see that the General Fund of Treasury/ budgetary offsets are making up roughly 40 percent of the Highway Trust Fund currently, but there still exists a user system veil for HTF protectors, of which there is a very active and well-funded lobby. Once you begin taking fees from elsewhere, that gets blown to pieces.

With you that we need to raise the federal gas tax!

Bikes aren’t allowed on highways anyway. How are local roads paid for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hating bikes should be taxed. Also hating dogs should be taxed.

Dog owners should be ticketed every time they take their precious doggy somewhere it isn't allowed. No Target runs for Fido.

[Anonymous]

You guys know that in MoCo, bike registration is already mandatory right? It's a criminal offense to not register your bicycle. Here's a video where a bicyclist was given a CRIMINAL citation for it.

https://youtu.be/28w6xvRj9EM?t=248

[Anonymous]

The cost of administering this program would cost more than the money received.