philly law might require bikes to be registered

[def215]

not sure if this is a repost but i find this ridiculous. how is the city going to do this. i can understand the fines for not following the law but seriously, bicycle registration and licensing. they must be kidding. that was one of the things that was appealing to me about owning and riding a bicycle, you have the freedom of not being hindered by the law(obeying traffic of course). i just find this ridiculous.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/70600422.html

City cyclists cheer one bill, boo others

By Jeff Shields

Inquirer Staff Writer
A less-motorized metropolis was the subject of City Council bills yesterday - one to allow human-powered taxis, another seeking strict regulation of the city's estimated 300,000 bicyclists that cycling advocates immediately denounced.

Bicycle enthusiasts yesterday enthusiastically welcomed the advent of pedicabs - the pedal-pushing chariots of three wheels or more that shuttle tourists and others short distances - after Council unanimously approved a bill to legalize and regulate the vehicles.

"It helps residents and tourists quickly get to where they need to go, and provides green jobs for the city," said John Boyle, advocacy director for the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia. The United Taxi Workers Alliance of Pennsylvania, representing licensed cabbies in the city, also supported the measure.

"While I am thrilled about the prospect that this new measure will move us toward reducing our city's carbon footprint, I'm thrilled that, more importantly, it will create new jobs," said Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown, the bill's sponsor.

The bill would require that operators get approval for their routes from the Streets Department and carry liability insurance. The city has chased out pedicab operators previously due to the lack of regulation.

The same bicycle boosters who embraced that bill were wary of legislation from Councilmen Frank DiCicco and James F. Kenney to better regulate everyday cyclists.

Kenney's bill would increase the fines to $300 for dangerous behavior by cyclists, specifically riding on the sidewalk (now a $10 fine) or wearing headphones while riding (now $3). Using a bike without brakes could lead to confiscation by police.

DiCicco's bill would mandate license plates on bikes for riders 12 and older. One-time registration would cost $20, with unregistered owners subject to a $100 fine.

Those proposals would discourage ridership without addressing the city's "chaotic" traffic problems, the Bicycle Coalition said in a statement.

Coalition campaign director Sarah Clark Stuart said the city must first enforce laws on the books. The Bicycle Coalition said other cities, including Los Angeles, Houston, Washington, Detroit, and Albuquerque, N.M., as well as Minnesota and Massachusetts had "all repealed laws similar to Councilman DiCicco's proposal."

"Enforcement can work, and up to now, traffic enforcement hasn't been a priority," said Breen Goodwin, the coalition's education director.

DiCicco tried to convince critics that the bills were the beginning of a "conversation," and suggested that everything in the bills was negotiable.

"What is not an option, however, is that the city continue to do nothing when it comes to the regulation of bicycles, the education of the bicycle-riding public, and the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists," DiCicco said in Council chambers.

Public hearings will be held in the new year, according to DiCicco's office.

The Bicycle Coalition later in the day issued a news release advising that bicycle police officers from the Ninth, Sixth, and Center City Districts will begin an education and enforcement program in Center City today.

The coalition said police would stop bicyclists riding on the sidewalk, not stopping at red lights or stop signs, and riding the wrong way in the road. The Police Department will also have vehicle units out on Spruce and Pine Streets ticketing motorists who are driving in, or illegally double-parking in, the bike lane or driving aggressively.

The Bicycle Coalition said it would have bicycle ambassadors on the streets helping to educate bicyclists who may not know the rules of the road and provide tips for riding in traffic.

In other Council business:

DiCicco introduced a bill that would permit only police personnel to park in the 700 and 800 blocks of Race Street, near Police Headquarters. A DiCicco spokesman said the bill was intended to force a solution to an ongoing problem in which police officers and other employees park their civilian vehicles at meters and elsewhere with impunity.

Councilman Darrell L. Clarke proposed an increase in the percentage of recording fees that go to the city's Housing Trust Fund. The fund has sunk from $13.8 million in 2007 to $8.3 million. Funding of affordable housing has been an issue between Clarke and Mayor Nutter since Nutter became mayor in 2008.

Councilman Frank Rizzo introduced a bill to disqualify tax deadbeats from acquiring zoning variances. The bill would require those seeking a variance for their property to receive certification from the Revenue Department that all of their taxes are paid or subject to a payment agreement with the city. DiCicco passed a similar bill in 2005, though a Rizzo spokesman said he believed this bill included more property owners.

 

[Lock]

Ya might suggest to these City Council folk that they look around at what other cities have done?
From here:
http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/safety/lisencing/history.htm

"On May 20, 1935 the City of Toronto passed a bylaw to license residents owning and using bicycles on the highways of the City."
"On February 4, 1957, City Council repealed the bicycle licensing by-law in the City. "

"The City of Toronto has investigated licensing cyclists on at least three occasions in the recent past:
1984: focus on bike theft
1992: focus on riding on sidewalks, traffic law compliance and couriers
1996: focus on riding on sidewalks, traffic law compliance and couriers"

"Each time the City has rejected licensing as a solution to the problem under discussion."

"The major reasons why licensing has been rejected are:
The difficulty in keeping a database complete and current
The difficulty in licensing children, given that they ride bikes too
Licensing in and of itself does not change the behaviour of cyclists who are disobeying traffic laws."

tks
Lock

 

[mwkeefer]

def215,

Im going to that city council meeting - how about you and everyone else from the area meet me downtown for this crap!

Also... they may have an issue enforcing it on our parts, an ebike by federal law is a "consumer electronics device" not a "bicycle" or a "motor vehicle" - these two caveots alone should protect us from this bullshit but... it's a slippery slope.

The next part of it will be compelling and fines for bicyclists who refuse to ride to the far right (as I refuse to do) ... even the non-applicable motor vehicle code says "as far to the right as is safe", well the right is never safe unless using it for a turn (which I have actually said to police who have harrassed me on normal bicycles).

They should focus on the kids who ride Dirt Motorcycles up and down the freaking streets - no tags, flying along at 40-60mph and not stopping... I've seen more injuries and fatalities in one year from those idiots than they claim for a 5 year period from bicycles. The laws are on the books for enforcing against these kids/people but they would rather come after us... why?

In either case, this whole "registration"/licensing shit for bicycles is moot - if we attend the council hearings, it should be fairly simple to convince them it would be unconstitutional at a minimum a bonus is that it would be directly oppositional to US Federal Law if it were applied to eBikes.

-Mike
PS: Ive known about this for some time now, just waiting for the moment to address it - guess that moment is here!
PPS: How would this effect people who travel by train but ride their bikes in a city, what do they have to register their bicycle with the city while they are there... how about students? What a fu***ng JOKE!

 

[mwkeefer]

I forgot - I spoke with about 2 dozen bike messengers in the past weeks and they are all planning to attend any hearings, in addition reps from 12 bicycle shops I contacted, 3 bike cops (in opposition to the proposal who will support the illegal nature of such licensing in general) and as many individual bike riders as I've managed to inform (well they all claim they will go, you know it will be a mere 1%).

-Mike

 

[mwkeefer]

Next thing it will be the shoes with wheels in the heels and then finally, just shoes you will have to register and pay a fee for.

What a crock - cars are bad enough, they shouldn't be registered or licensed either (automobiles not motor vehicles and yes there is a HUGE difference) but now they want to mess with bicycles?

The only thing that makes sense to me is economic revenue, they must be planning to allow parking authority to impound bicycles now... for illegal chaining to fences, lights, etc... Think I am kidding? Ever see parking wars?

Figure 100-300 to get your bike out of hock and the bootstrap the whole thing with this law and then an enforcement law which gives them the authority to confiscate and impound... I guess it's cool for the rest of the country, won't need to buy stolen illegal bikes now - The city of brotherly love will sell them to you at a great auction price, pennies on the dollar and no need to worry about being charged with receiving stolen property, when the city STEALS it does so with impunity.

Can anyone else tell I'm PISSED about this?

Am I the only one with enough Philadelphia memory to see where this is all headed if allowed to pass?

-Mike

PS: I wish I were just ranting but I'm not, as odd or far fetched as the above sounds... wait and see.

 

[dogman dan]

I fail to see what the purpose is for a licence plate for a bike. But bikers ask for this shit when they scofflaw ride, wrong way, no stops, or sidewalk where it's banned.

In New Mexico we have a really good set of bike rider road rights. The roadie clubs were responsible for this legislation, and it took them a lot of work over years of time. But they didn't get it passed by the example of breaking the existing vehicle statutes. Our laws do make sense, for example, we can take the lane if we need to, but we have to ride single file if cars need to pass. So now we have the right to ride, but we will get ticketed for rolling a stop sign or too fast in a school zone or DUI. But even mopeds don't need a licence plate. We can ride the sidewalk most places, but are expected to do so at a reasonable speed. You should advocate for similar laws to those in New Mexico, like Albuquerqe.

 

[Russell]

The two small cities I lived in previously both had statutes on the books requiring the registration of bicycles. I looked up the laws for the city I live in now and it too states it's unlawful to ride a bike on the roads or sidewalks without it being registered, it also requires notification within 10 days if the bike changes ownership or is dismantled. I don't know what the fines are but the registration fee is $5. I don't have any of my bikes registered however I would do so at least for one if I regularly left it locked up outside making it prone to theft. I suspect that's why many municipalities have such laws to begin with since registration makes it far easier to get a bike back to its owner if it is recovered.

The upping of fines for cyclists breaking traffic laws will definitely make it more likely the police will stop a bike rider since it would be worth the Officer's time. Cyclists who routinely blow through red lights or violate other traffic laws should be concerned.

-R

 

[mwkeefer]

Guys,

I have no problem with the city enforcing the laws which are already on the books:
1.) Reckless riding
2.) Sidewalk riding
3.) Intoxicated riding

But I draw the line at a registration and licensing scheme which is clearly what Philadelphia is trying to do.

There are a bunch of bone heads out there but... the existing laws are applicable to them and can be enforced for safety sake.

There are some rules about laws which require registration or licensing... one of them is that the "controls" put in place must be to assure safety and must be minimally restrictive to acheive that goal. In addition, if there is already a law on the books.. they can't create a "new infrastructure" of laws to require registration and licensing.

This is the same shit as when my grandfather (passed now) could just renew his license by mailing in somthing, he couldn't see and was 90+ years old at the time and he shouldn't have been driving (actually he volunteered to surrender his license at this point, he is a minority). They are doing nothing more than trying to reclassify what has been "private transportation" since the early 1900s in the country into a "privledge" which requires registration and licensing...

I'm sorry but I REFUSE TO SURRENDER MY RIGHTS in exchange for PRIVLEDGES - the very definition of the two: A right cannot be taken or abridged by law (constitutionally sound statement, with case law to back it up) which is known as Conversion - RIGHTS must be surrendered willingly (DMV, drivers license, etc) in order for a state or local government to convert them into Privledges which can be taken at any time for any reason (Motor Vehicle Code is a prime example of this willing surrender and acceptance of privledge contract).

For those who wonder... yes I do have a little background in constitutional law but more importantly... I have experience for 15 years fighting PennDot (and winning 98% of the time) with regards to my "Right to drive" vs their interest in converting that right into a privledge (license, registration, etc).

As many of you know... eBikes (which meet federal regulation and definition) are not "Motor Vehicles" or "Bicycles" but rather are "Consumer Electronic Devices" akin to a stereo or computer. As such the philadelphia laws won't effect an eBike no matter what they put down but... comeon, this is plain wrong.

Please tell me I am not the only person out here who sees this?

-Mike

 

[Russell]

I looked up the laws in every community I have lived and they ALL require the registration of bicycles so yeah I guess I would say I think you are over-reacting to the development in your city.

-R

 

[def215]

im pretty much agree with you mike. i can understand getting fines for wreckless riding and not obeying traffic, but the need for registering and licensing a bicycle of all things that have wheels is just retarded. theyre human powered for crying out loud. i dont understand the motive behind it besides it will help track down a stolen bike.

 

[mwkeefer]

Russell,

As the laws stand... they have already got the:
1.) Bad riders
2.) Drunk riders
3.) Dangerous riders

covered either with state law, city ordinance or motor vehicle code.

As of now... I could receive a ticket for riding to the far left (even though I keep up with traffic - were talking 20-25mph limits... no reason to go faster!) but I can go to court and argue that the bicycle lane (dismemberment lane) is just not safe and win (I and many others have done this before) or have the ticket tossed.

With the new law, they would write the ticket not under motor vehicle code (which says to stay as far right as is safe) but under their own BS codes... which will require riding in the bike lanes while on the street and prohibit sidewalks all together.

300K bicycles... even at 5.00 a piece for registration (which surrenders your rights and accepts their "privledge") they stand to make: 5 x 300,000 = 1.5 million in revenue - that's just registration.

Add to it the additional fines and enforcement powers (which are redundant since they are on the book already) and ...

Again... I am all for enforcement of the existing laws to protect pedestrians but when cities see the expanding bike use as a potential money maker and try to incorporate new laws to render that income... what the heck is it coming to.... do you think they will follow up with an investigation if my "registered" bike is stolen? Nope.

After living in philadelphia 10+ years... All of which riding some form of 2 wheel transport (GoPed, Segway, Bicycle, eBike) I can tell you - there is NO SAFETY REASON for these laws - pure fiscal.

I guess that this really burns me because it's not even directed towards us (ebikes) but rather towards people who are either too poor to afford a car, environmentally conscious or trying to get fit. This will not help to reduce vehicular traffic nor will it reduce injuries and accidents - either pedestrian / bike or auto / bike. In fact... as we are all aware, if we must ride in the "reserved right side bike lanes" there will be a 60-70% increase in injuries suffered to the cyclist and there is a 50% higher chance (under estimate) of collission with auto and pedistrian traffic.

Bicycles are the second pedestrians - people walking have the right of way then bikes then cars.

-Mike

 

[mwkeefer]

im pretty much agree with you mike. i can understand getting fines for wreckless riding and not obeying traffic, but the need for registering and licensing a bicycle of all things that have wheels is just retarded. theyre human powered for crying out loud. i dont understand the motive behind it besides it will help track down a stolen bike.

Tracking stolen bikes is done by serial numbers (look at the database at South Detectives, I have many times) and so registration isn't for that... I tell you brother, they are trying to cash in on the GREEN movement and as most cities do, also cater to the autos with these death lanes (bike lanes without curbing and on the right hand side of the road).

1.5million for registering 300K bikes @ 5.00 each...

The problem comes down the road, as of now we can ride how we want... so long as it's safe even if we get a ticket, we will win (for not using bike lanes, being on sidewalk, etc) - when this law goes in, the citation will be not under motor vehicle code (which although I have my issues with licensing and registration atleast they word the law as "As far right as is safe" - the as is safe bit being paramount... the new law, no such thing.

It's not for our safety but rather to reduce the bikes on the road and also increase revenues.

All they need to do is enforce the existing laws and the "safety issues" they claim exist are handled, this is an end run around our rights as soverign citizens of the United States of America!

** Updated:
When I say the city can't convert my rights into privledges (I have the right to travel in the conveyance of the day as a part of my right to liberty), I should actually say they can't legally convert my right without a valid public safety need and improvement through new legislation and then the bar (measure) for constitutionality of conversion is that there must be no existing law which could or does cover the given situation, then the restrictions must also be kept to a bare minimum - this is for me, and you as Soverign Citizens and doesn't apply to those engaged in commerce on the roads.

With regards to Bike Messengers, PediCab drivers, Courriers, Medics on Bike, Police on Bike, vendors on bike, etc... these people are all using a bicycle but they are engaging in and deriving income directly from commerce on and over the public roadways (our roads). The city of philadelphia can regulate and license these people in any way it sees fit, they are not exercising their God Given and Constitutionally Secure right to liberty - they are engaged in the act of commerce which wouldn't be possible without the use of our public roads and as such they are not deemed Soverign Citizens but rather commercian entities - the latter any city/state has full authority over the licensing and / or prohibition of.

I hope that clears it up - there is a huge difference between Me and a Bike Messenger. There is also a huge difference in the riding style and level of safety that I employ vs a Bike Messenger.

In 3200 (or so) odd miles of commuting on an eBike... I've not had a single accident (one close call, but that's different and in my defense.. who expects to look up and see a famous actor has stepped into their path in an alley way in philadelphia?) but I assure you if I were to be riding in the bike lane... I would have had 4 already (the number of Auto/Bike collissions I have witnessed in my eBike time and were caused by Auto Driver Error - 1 resulted in cyclist death while using the bike lane and the other 3 were hospitalized. In one case, 3 pedestrians on the sidewalk were injured because the at fault auto knocked the bicycle he caused a collision with to be thrown into the pedestrian walkway.) - most likely I would have been killed in 1.

Finally... I pedal along on a normal bike at between 15-25mph without effort on flats (city streets in philadelphia). With some effort I can hit 35 and maintain it for a mile or so... Since the normal speed limits in the city are 25mph, and really traffic is normally slower than this... I have ZERO issue keeping up with and maintaining the pace of traffic, why the hell should I ride in the danger zone so these idiots can sit on each others bumpers and not move? When I am in traffic, I slow down a bit (match their speed really) and I use lights and signals to ensure they have a chance to see me (by using their signaling methods, I'm more likely to attract their attention)... Again, why should I move over into a hazard area when I'm not slowing anyone down (if I am slowing you down in the city streets, your going 3+ mph over the limit at minimum... why shouldn't you slow down?)?

If they want traffic in the city to move faster, increase the street speed limits (they won't because they can't) and I'll plan a new route around those streets wherever possible.

-Mike

 

[Icewrench]

Two times in my life the Seattle city council has passed a bicycle registration fee / tax only to repeal it both times.
It was repealed because nobody bothered to register a bike.

 

[PeteCress]

Two times in my life the Seattle city council has passed a bicycle registration fee / tax only to repeal it both times.
It was repealed because nobody bothered to register a bike.

Honolulu had it 40 years ago. I still have my license plate somewhere.

Now they don't.

Go figure...