Cycling licenses

ccarter@new.rr.com

Hello,

Do you guys think the government will, someday, license bikes the way
they do with automobiles?

If so, what do you think thier reasons would be?

Cullen

Tom Sherman

ccarter@new.rr.com aka Cullen Carter wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Do you guys think the government will, someday, license bikes the way
> they do with automobiles?
>
Which government - Usenet does not have national boundaries?

In the US it is a possibility, if the people continue to let themselves
by cowed by fear mongering politicians and pundits, whose real goal is
to increase the authoritarian power of the ruling classes.

> If so, what do you think thier reasons would be?
>
Revenue and control of the population.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Jens Müller

Tom Sherman schrieb:
> ccarter@new.rr.com aka Cullen Carter wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Do you guys think the government will, someday, license bikes the way
>> they do with automobiles?
>>
> Which government - Usenet does not have national boundaries?
>
> In the US it is a possibility,

In Germany, intrusions into fundamental rights need to be intended to
further a legitimate state interest and be necessary, suitable and
proportionate.

So, here it is not a possibility, unless Schäuble's way of interpreting
the Basic Law becomes generally accepted.

Ozark Bicycle

On Apr 20, 8:14 am, "ccar...@new.rr.com" <ccar...@new.rr.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Do you guys think the government will, someday, license bikes the way
> they do with automobiles?
>
> If so, what do you think thier reasons would be?
>


Do you mean license bicycle 'operators' (i.e., riders), bicycles
themselves, or both?

In any case, there are two reasons this could happen:

1) to create another revenue stream

2) to gain more control

Could there come a day when pedestrians are 'licensed', too?

Tom Keats

In article <3e2538da-70ad-4696-b35b-43fe7a37afea@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
"ccarter@new.rr.com" <ccarter@new.rr.com> writes:
> Hello,
>
> Do you guys think the government will, someday, license bikes the way
> they do with automobiles?
>
> If so, what do you think thier reasons would be?

The City of Vancouver has at various times pitched
bicycle licensing programs, ostensibly to render
stolen bikes more recoverable.

The expense of running such programs simply
isn't worth it. A civic budget is better
applied to filling potholes and keeping the
fire hydrants working.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Jym Dyer

> Do you guys think the government will, someday, license bikes
> the way they do with automobiles?

=v= It would a a huge waste of money for no actual benefit.
Consider that China has more bike commuters than other nation,
and also one of the world's most authoritarian regimes, yet
somehow muddles through without bike licenses.

> If so, what do you think thier reasons would be?

=v= Nothing rational. Occasionally you get opinionators who
scream for it, based on the notion the it would make bikers obey
the law better, but that's based on the nonsensical premise that
licensed motorists are somehow more in compliance with the law.

=v= Occasionally you get police who find freedom of mobility an
affront to the police state powers they'd like to have, calling
for bike licenses as an excuse to hassle nonconformists.
<_Jym_>

Jeff

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <3e2538da-70ad-4696-b35b-43fe7a37afea@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> "ccarter@new.rr.com" <ccarter@new.rr.com> writes:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Do you guys think the government will, someday, license bikes the way
>> they do with automobiles?
>>
>> If so, what do you think thier reasons would be?
>
> The City of Vancouver has at various times pitched
> bicycle licensing programs, ostensibly to render
> stolen bikes more recoverable.
>
> The expense of running such programs simply
> isn't worth it. A civic budget is better
> applied to filling potholes and keeping the
> fire hydrants working.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>
Back in the 70s (and maybe 80s?) the City of Winnipeg also licensed
bikes for similar reasons. It was not mandatory, AFAICR. It didn't
seem to be particularly effective.

If you want something like that to recover the cost of operation (forget
adding to the city's bottom line), you're almost certainly looking at
$40 or $50 minimum, maybe more. If you're plonking $200 to $300 for a
bike for the kid, a $50 licensing fee is huge.

I think bike licensing would be a very tough sell.

ZBicyclist

ccarter@new.rr.com wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Do you guys think the government will, someday, license bikes the way
> they do with automobiles?
>
> If so, what do you think thier reasons would be?

In theory, bicycles in my city are required to have licenses. In theory,
this is so a stolen bicycle can be reunited with its owner.

In reality, it's not worth the trouble to enforce.


--
Mike Kruger
"You have to be careful if you are reckless." - Richard M. Daley

Tom Keats

In article <Jym.20Apr2008.480b7e4d@scorcher.org>,
Jym Dyer <jym@econet.org> writes:
>> Do you guys think the government will, someday, license bikes
>> the way they do with automobiles?
>
> =v= It would a a huge waste of money for no actual benefit.
> Consider that China has more bike commuters than other nation,
> and also one of the world's most authoritarian regimes, yet
> somehow muddles through without bike licenses.
>
>> If so, what do you think thier reasons would be?
>
> =v= Nothing rational. Occasionally you get opinionators who
> scream for it, based on the notion the it would make bikers obey
> the law better, but that's based on the nonsensical premise that
> licensed motorists are somehow more in compliance with the law.
>
> =v= Occasionally you get police who find freedom of mobility an
> affront to the police state powers they'd like to have, calling
> for bike licenses as an excuse to hassle nonconformists.

I figure it works like this: somebody -- maybe a public
official, or somebody who has a public offical or two
in his pocket, complains about those pesky cyclists.

So City Council has to be seen to do something about it.
They come-up with that oh so original idea of licensing bikes.

Then the furor/tempest-in-a-teapot dies down, and
life temporarily returns to normal.

Kind of like the placid intervals between earthquakes.

Of all the things that push my political buttons,
the notion that bike riders should have to pay a
fee just to go anywhere is the hottest.

The people who promote such ideas are just
mean-spirited meanies. As my mom would have
said: "They should have to live with themselves."


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Mark Shroyer

In article <15chuf.325.ln@vcn.bc.ca>,
tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:

> The people who promote such ideas are just mean-spirited meanies.

OT, but I find it amusing how, amidst all the intensely cruel and vulgar
insults in circulation on the Internet, they are the the simplest and
most childlike ones that sound the most incisive of them all.

Anyway, I agree entirely.

--
Mark Shroyer, http://markshroyer.com/contact/
I have joined others in blocking Google Groups due to excessive
spam. If you want more people to see your posts, you should use
another means of posting to Usenet. http://improve-usenet.org/

Tom Keats

In article <usenet-mail-A0EAFD.03295421042008@snap.homestarmy.net>,
Mark Shroyer <usenet-mail@markshroyer.com> writes:
> In article <15chuf.325.ln@vcn.bc.ca>,
> tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>
>> The people who promote such ideas are just mean-spirited meanies.
>
> OT, but I find it amusing how, amidst all the intensely cruel and vulgar
> insults in circulation on the Internet, they are the the simplest and
> most childlike ones that sound the most incisive of them all.
>
> Anyway, I agree entirely.

Thanks. (I think.)


cheers, & enjoy Spring riding weather,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Mark Shroyer

In article <dfghuf.i45.ln@vcn.bc.ca>,
tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:

> In article <usenet-mail-A0EAFD.03295421042008@snap.homestarmy.net>,
> Mark Shroyer <usenet-mail@markshroyer.com> writes:
> > In article <15chuf.325.ln@vcn.bc.ca>,
> > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> >
> >> The people who promote such ideas are just mean-spirited meanies.
> >
> > OT, but I find it amusing how, amidst all the intensely cruel and vulgar
> > insults in circulation on the Internet, they are the the simplest and
> > most childlike ones that sound the most incisive of them all.
> >
> > Anyway, I agree entirely.
>
> Thanks. (I think.)
>
>
> cheers, & enjoy Spring riding weather,
> Tom


(No, that wasn't some bizarre veiled insult; just a bizarre, sleep
deprived observation )

--
Mark Shroyer, http://markshroyer.com/contact/
I have joined others in blocking Google Groups due to excessive
spam. If you want more people to see your posts, you should use
another means of posting to Usenet. http://improve-usenet.org/

c

See:

http://tinylink.com/?7R5EPHZCQZ

ccarter@new.rr.com wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Do you guys think the government will, someday, license bikes the way
> they do with automobiles?
>
> If so, what do you think thier reasons would be?
>
> Cullen

c

Look at

http://oferta.deremate.cl/id=176528...ao-1976-antigua






ccarter@new.rr.com wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Do you guys think the government will, someday, license bikes the way
> they do with automobiles?
>
> If so, what do you think thier reasons would be?
>
> Cullen