HB 2331 has been introduced at the legislature to require the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to conduct a study of the feasibility of licensing bicycles. The bill was introduced by the House Transportation Committee and has been referred to the House Transportation and Economic Development Committee, with a subsequent referral to the Ways and Means Committee.
The study to be conducted by ODOT would examine whether bicycle licensing should be voluntary or mandatory, would be useful in locating stolen bikes, would produce revenues to fund infrastructure, and would provide data needed for planning purposes. Under the bill, ODOT would be expected to complete the study in early 2013.
I believe that cyclists should support passage of the bill. The debate over bicycle licensing has gone on for years, with a small vocal group constantly complaining that "bicyclists don't pay" despite the overwhelming amount of information demonstrating that, as a result of the subsidization of motor vehicles, bicyclists already pay more than their share of road costs and that any reasonable registration fee would only cover the administrative costs of a licensing program.
Clearly, some critics of cycling would dismiss the results of a study, just as they do with any objective information that is inconsistent with their world view. However, I am convinced that the study would provide additional information demonstrating that bicycle licensing is not feasible and that this information, produced by a motor vehicle centric organization like ODOT, would be more credible to legislators than the information currently available. Thus, HB 2331 offers the potential to move the debate forward with facts and data.
It would be helpful if the bill were amended to provide for some type of public involvement process in the way in which the study is conducted and to require the release of a draft of the results of the study for public comment and review. While that would not satisfy the wingnuts among us, it would help to broaden the public understanding and awareness of the results.
The bill is not currently scheduled for hearing and likely won't be considered by the committee until late March. Assuming that the Transportation Committee approves the bill, then it will go to the Ways and Means Committee--the historic resting place for any legislation that costs money. Hopefully, the legislature will find an approach to addressing bicycle licensing that is reasonable, credible, and inexpensive.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's so great to see your analysis! Thank you.
ReplyDeleteConcur completely, with one or two reservations. A licensing regime would be useful for a number of reasons, not least of which is that we could make the bike operators license a smart and sensible example of what a graduated license system should be.
ReplyDeleteI imagine a system with kids eligible at, say, age ten, for the first license, with a renewal due at thirteen, then at fifteen or sixteen. Dollars to donuts, young adults would be better and safer car operators if they had learned the rules of safe biking.
The main downside to bike licensing is that we have used the "driving is a privilege, not a right" to make driving into consent to police state tactics. The decisions on autos and police stops are all predicated on the idea that the mobility of the auto justifies shredding the Fourth Amendment entirely, leading to a huge expansion of police powers and the concomitant rise in racial profiling and pretext stops. If bicyclists must be licensed, then we invite the same problems into the world of bikes, and with, often, much younger folks who will be much less savvy about their rights. I can easily see bike licensing being turned into an irresistible impulse for the police to expand the "War on Drugs" and "Gangs" so much that anyone except for a rich white kid in Spandex Warrior garb could expect to be stopped whenever a cop decides that black or brown kid "looked suspicious" ... And we know from decades of experience that people of color are far more suspicious looking to the police than white people are, right out of the gate. The data on auto stops is incontrovertible.
That's my big reservation on bike licensing ... How can we get there without inviting a huge expansion of police powers?
@Walker - Hmm, I'm not sure I know what you are agreeing with. I support a study of bicycle (not bicyclist) licensing.
ReplyDeleteBy every objective measure, bicycle licensing is a bad idea. It wouldn't provide sufficient revenues to pay for itself, let alone to pay for infrastructure. It wouldn't be enforceable. For these reasons, other jurisdictions are repealing their bicycle licensing programs. I am confident that a study by ODOT would confirm that and help put the idea to bed so we don't have to deal with it every time that the legislature comes to town.
You are absolutely correct about the likely discriminatory enforcement of any licensing scheme. There are much higher priorities for police than chasing after unlicensed bicyclists on unlicensed bicycles. So, the only cyclists who would be cited would be those who had done something else to attract attention.