|fargo senator/bill for cyclists to pay fee and registration||JS Haiku Shop|
Feb 6, 2003 6:43 AM
|this has been floating around e-mail and listservs, but i can't find the article, and the link is bad. anyone have insight or more info?
Senator urging bike registration had run-in with bicyclists
By DEENA WINTER, Bismarck Tribune
A Fargo senator who has introduced a controversial bill to levy a $50 registration fee on serious bicyclists was accused of intentionally striking a bicyclist on a road north of Fargo in 1997.
Sen. John Syverson, R-Fargo, is the primary sponsor of Senate Bill 2391, which would require long-distance bicyclists who ride outside city limits to register with the state, although it wouldn't apply to bikes with less than three gears or bicyclists who are under the age of 14.
The state would issue a registration decal that would be good for two years, and the money collected would be deposited in the state highway fund for the construction and maintenance of bicycle paths.
(see website for rest of story)
|Cool, I guess SS & Fixtes will rule in Dakota! nm||MB1|
Feb 6, 2003 7:03 AM
|applies to what, 3 or 4 cyclists?||DougSloan|
Feb 6, 2003 7:03 AM
|How many cyclists are there in North Dakota? Looks like all of them will be on fixed gear from now on. Anyway, they won't raise enough money to build 10 feet of bike path.
|True, the guy's being a nuiscance to make a name for himself...||bent_spoke|
Feb 6, 2003 7:23 AM
|Politicians are a ridiculous sometimes. In town, there was a guy trying to take credit for having brought in cable TV. "Get real dude", a 5 year old could have gotten this done. They should really find a better way to spend their time....like biking maybe!!|
|Just another stupid F**ing tax...||eschelon|
Feb 6, 2003 7:19 AM
|that will only be diverted to the politician's pals. Only pussies and Sunday strollers on their beach cruisers ride on bike paths along with every stupid unleashed child and roller bladers taking up the whole path.
The "serious bicyclists" usually travel at much faster velocity than other recreation sports and usually avoid bike paths like the plague.
|I wouldn't mind the tax if cyclists control the funds. nm||dzrider|
Feb 6, 2003 7:54 AM
|name one instance where a taxee controlled the funds :-( nm||kenyee|
Feb 6, 2003 8:20 AM
|How about Bush's tax refunds? :^) nm||Matno|
Feb 6, 2003 8:52 AM
|Email for this moron senator:||chaquefois|
Feb 6, 2003 8:40 AM
Let's all tell this jackass what we think!
|On the other hand||AaronL|
Feb 6, 2003 8:42 AM
|I would see this as a means to counter the ever popular argument against cyclists from motorists about paying taxes to use the road. I know the truth, you know the truth, but trying to explain that to some people is useless. If I paid to register my bicycle (which i would have no problem doing) then that argument is null.
Screw using the money for more bike paths,use it to make the existing roads better for bikes.
|re: On the other hand||JS Haiku Shop|
Feb 6, 2003 8:46 AM
|"...the money collected would be deposited in the state highway fund for the construction and maintenance of bicycle paths."
seems like the means to an unhappy end. what do you suppose the good senator's next step would be?
this isn't for making better roads for bikes--it's for making MUTs, and we know about those, don't we?
|And then....||Mel Erickson|
Feb 6, 2003 9:34 AM
|once a few (a very few, because there will be very little money) MUTS are constructed the next bill will be to ban bicycles from roads, because they've got their own "roads" to ride on. Pretty transparent guy. I hope the good citizens and legislators in North Dakota (or should I say just "Dakota", is that more PC?) don't just ignore this proposal because it's see through. These types of things are insidious and all it takes for them to succeed is to be asleep at the handlebars. North Dakota cyclists, UNITE! (There, I feel better already. I'm alright now. Really, I am.)|
Feb 6, 2003 10:59 AM
|I agree with you on the reasoning behind his bill, and what his long-term objective is.
What I'm saying in a nutshell is that I've got no problem with registering my bicycle and paying a fee. As long as the fees go to improve cycling on public streets. That's all.
|Where's cyclists get the right||War on War|
Feb 6, 2003 10:07 AM
|to use the roads for free? Who's be the first to complain if they weren't maintained - and that costs money.
I don't like it, but I find it hard to say that it's unfair just because it's a tax. We don't have a right to use the roads for free, do far as I can see (ignoring the fact that we pay tax in other ways, but then so do folk who don't drive or cycle, though maybe less so).
|LOL||JS Haiku Shop|
Feb 6, 2003 10:15 AM
|we own two cars and pay the same auto- and road-related taxes as non-cyclists. however, i personally drive less due to cycling--which has more of a detrimental affect on roads: cars or bikes? in this light i feel a rebate or pro-rated tax is due.|
|Actually, this makes some sense||Kristin|
Feb 6, 2003 1:29 PM
|Minnesota has a vehicle registration tax and I bet that most of the road maintenance pool comes from this tax. Whereas, in Illinois--who doesn't tax its auto's annually--gets its funds from other sources, such as property taxes. So in Illinois, it would by crazy to levy a tax against bikes specifically, when it doesn't tax car owners. But in a place where auto's are taxed yearly based on value, then it makes sense to a degree. In Minnesota, the car tax is 1.25%. $25/year is 1.25% of a bike worth $2000--which I'm guessing they have assumed is the bike value for bikes riden on streets.|
|Doesn't hold up||Mel Erickson|
Feb 6, 2003 5:30 PM
|How many bike riders who regularly use the roads also own a car? I'll bet a very high percentage, over 90%. Why should we penalize a person who chooses to use a vehicle (bike) that uses fewer resources, damages the roads less, causes less congestion, etc. instead of his/her auto? Especially when that person is paying full freight on the car(s) they own and are NOT driving. I'm with JS Haiku Shop on this one.|
|Where's cyclists get the right||Bike Nut|
Feb 6, 2003 1:35 PM
|Oh, come on now! Fuel and use taxes together with registration fees pay less than one-third of the cost of building and maintaining roads. But those paying those taxes cause 99.9% of the damage to those roads. We cyclists aren't using the roads for free by any stretch of the imagination.|
|A response from the Editory||Kristin|
Feb 6, 2003 1:14 PM
|I emailed the Bismark's editor today and he validated the story:
"I don't know why it's not online, but it did appear on Page 1A of the Bismarck Tribune on Wednesday, Feb. 5.
The Bismarck Tribune"
|There's only 400,000 people in all of North Dakota||Scot_Gore|
Feb 6, 2003 2:02 PM
|He's taking aim at the cross country riders from out of state.
This guy's bill is not aimed at raising tax revenue from North Dakota citizens. It's aim at raising ticket (fine) revenue from trans America riders from other parts of the country. Many northern trans America routes go through North Dakota. I'm sure it's appeal is the roads are mostly empty and it's part of Adventure Cycling's Lewis & Clark route.
The result might be that the trans America riders plan their routes through South Dakota and No. Dakota never sees their tourism dollar. Smart thinking by the senator huh!!!! South Dakota is probably cheering him on.
|Damn I'm good at geology||Kristin|
Feb 6, 2003 2:20 PM
|Bismark isn't in Minnesota is it?|
|I never had a clue that you were thinking this was a MN proposal||Scot_Gore|
Feb 6, 2003 3:03 PM
|I figured you were just using a state that has high licensing fees as an example.
I don't know for sure, but I don't think No. Dakota does. They don't offer many goverment services for their rural population.
Notice not a single posters has popped up to say "hey, I live in No. Dakota", there's nobody there and fewer and fewer every year. I think they lost a house seat last census.
|geography nm||JS Haiku Shop|
Feb 7, 2003 6:09 AM
|that's all good and fine, but...||JS Haiku Shop|
Feb 7, 2003 6:08 AM
|bad laws (or whatever this is, legally speaking) have to start somewhere. things are more easily foisted on other states / jurisdictions with a precedence set.
don't get me talking all this legal and political mumbo jumbo, i don't know nuthin' about nuthin', as you can see from the confused jargon.
|Another update from our editor friend...you heard it first here||Kristin|
Feb 7, 2003 6:57 AM
|The latest news is that there was a hearing on the bill Thursday, and its sponsor (pardon the pun) back-pedaled a bit. The committee hearing the bill recommended it be defeated, and it will now go to the full House, where its defeat is a near certainty. Cyclists turned out in droves at the hearing.
The Bismarck Tribune
|thanks, K! nm||JS Haiku Shop|
Feb 7, 2003 7:29 AM