The subject of bicycle fees has arisen again, and a feverish movement to make cyclists pay “their fair share” for using the roads is in full swing. Of course, this issue has arisen in Oregon, one of the most pro-cycling states in the U.S.
A bill designed to impose a $10 registration fee on all bikes was introduced by Sen. Larry George, a Republican who represents rural Yamhill County. He introduced this bill because a constituent, who is a farmer, said that she has “trouble moving her equipment because of all the cycling tourists on the narrow- or no-shoulder roads in the heart of wine country.”
Despite this dubious excuse for introducing a bill, Sen. George claimed to have done it to initiate a conversation about whether cyclists are paying their fair share to use the roads. He sees this as a necessary conversation because of the increase in cyclists riding on Oregon’s roads.
The story was originally reported on OregonlLive, where it generated over 350 comments and caught the attention of other media outlets. According to a second article written as a follow-up on this subject, an unscientific poll was conducted by KTVZ. It showed that 53 percent of respondents liked the idea of bicycle fees, 42 percent didn’t like it, and the rest were undecided.
A similar poll on OregonLive got a different result: 41 percent marked “‘No fee, no way,’ ‘27 percent marked that $10 seems reasonable’ and 32 percent said they’d be glad to pay as much as $25 if ‘it were to go to bike-related projects.’ The OregonLive poll had 895 responses as of 10 a.m.”
As more cyclists begin to use the roads, this issue will become even more heated. Given the relatively low cost of bicycles and the small amount of wear they cause on the roads, compared to cars, this is more a matter of resentment than cyclists actually paying their “fair share” to use the roads.
Costs for such a program would outweigh the benefits. Just the administrative overhead to collect $10 from each bicycle owner and to follow up with any who don’t pay the registration fee would wipe out any revenues this idea would generate.
There just aren’t enough people riding bicycles to turn this idea into a cash cow. So why does this issue come up again and again?
Drivers begrudge cyclists’ equality. They see cyclists as not belonging, so they want to penalize them for using roads which belong to cars. Their pretext for penalizing cyclists is that those who use bike lanes and bike paths should pay for them.
While it’s true that tax dollars pay for these things, it’s equally true that our tax dollars go to many things we either disagree with (e.g. wars) or don’t benefit from directly (e.g. schools, when we don’t have school aged children). Likewise, roads are paid for out of general taxes, such as property taxes.
If the goal of this new fee structure is to increase funds for building and maintaining bicycle infrastructure, then the taxes (fees) should not be born by a select group of citizens. In every civilized society, taxes are collected from all citizens and are pooled to pay for things that are provided by the government, for the public good.
This was not the prevailing view in the OregonLive comment section. Three hundred and fifty comments was too much to read. But skimming through them, I came across several which seemed to capture the general sentiment of the commenters.
One thing that made me think about the validity of these comments was the frequency with which people identified themselves as cyclists and then went on to espouse the view that cyclists should pay a fee. Some cyclists are clearly in favor of such an approach. However, there is no way to verify whether these people are cyclists and proclaiming oneself a cyclist seems to have become a common refrain among commenters who want to bash cyclists without seeming anti-bicycle.
The first comment was from someone who was defending Republicans. He/she did this because the Senator who introduced the bill was a Republican. His political party came under fire from those who disagree with the Republican platform and saw this as just one more reason to hate Republicans.
This so-called Republican bicycle commuter admonished cyclists for opposing the $10 fee. He/she showed a willingness to pay it because of a belief that the money would go towards bicycle-related projects.
Another self-proclaimed cyclist came along and stated that a one-time fee was inadequate. He wanted to impose a recurring two year fee on cyclists to generate a “stream of revenue that could be allocated toward bike lanes and safety programs.” Again, we see an assumption that this “revenue stream” would be sufficient to cover both administrative overhead and bicycle projects.
No comment section feud would be complete without a comedian to balance out the hateful comments. Colorful images of pedestrian licensing characterized this chuckle-worthy comment.
Questions of this sort will grow as cycling gains popularity and bicycle infrastructure spreads to more areas. Whether cyclists are paying their fair share — through property taxes and general taxes — it’s hard to say. What we can all agree on is that money is needed to pay not only for bicycle infrastructure, but also for road repairs.
American roads are in terrible disrepair. Cyclists and drivers suffer for the lack of maintenance. So some method of paying for better roads and better transportation options is required.
It would be a travesty if bicycle registration laws or bicycle only taxes were imposed by states looking for a quick way to pass the buck. Some creative thinking is in order to come up with viable ways to pay for repairs to our crumbling infrastructure. This is a shared responsibility, not one to be shouldered by a disliked minority group to the advantage of others.
