iowa senator putney proposes license

[futrino]

http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=2780


my favorite part is
A
5 26 conviction for failing to carry or refusing to show a license
5 27 also results in the revocation of the license and a suspension
5 28 of the person's privilege to obtain a license for a period of
5 29 one year. A charge of failing to carry or refusal to show a
5 30 license will be dismissed if the person produces in court,
5 31 prior to the court date indicated on the citation, a license
5 32 issued to the person that was valid when the person was
5 33 charged with a violation.
5 34 When a license is revoked, the date, cause, and tenure of
5 35 the revocation must be kept on file with the department. Upon
6 1 revocation of a license, the department or a license agent
6 2 shall not grant a new license for a period of one year.

 

[DennisTheBald]

On Jan 17, 12:23 pm, futrino <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=2780

A separate license, not a bicycle endorsement on their motor vehicle
operators license? Talk about your waste.

I think the politician has gone of half-cocked, and is having a knee
jerk reaction to an Iowa county losing a law suit from the survivors
of a biker that got his wheel caught in a crack on RAGBRAI and died.

Of course, the bicycle endorsement on the existing license would beg
the question what do you gotta do to get it, a track stand in the DMV
parking lot? Effective Cycling Instructor certification? In Iowa
when I got my motorcycle endorsement I had to ride around some cones
in the parking lot for an officer, in Texas I had to provide a car and
driver for the officer to follow me around on the street for a
while... I don't think either state requires actual driving tests in
this day and age (dang, if that don't scare ya off the roads nothin'
will)

This may very well backfire on him, even tho the law clearly allows
bicycle operators on public roads (save Interstate Hiways and where
otherwise prohibited) licensing bike riders would go a long way to
changing the misguided perception that the roads were built for cars
and belong exclusively to them. It will also contradict the fallacy
that motor fuel taxes are the sole funding for state & federal hiways.

On the other hand it would provide the government a means of tracking
bike riders and when they make self propelled locomotion illegal they
will know who we are and where we live and be able to herd us into the
cattle cars just that much easier.

 

[Marz]

On Jan 17, 1:12 pm, DennisTheBald <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 12:23 pm, futrino <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=2780
>
> A separate license, not a bicycle endorsement on their motor vehicle
> operators license? Talk about your waste.
>
> I think the politician has gone of half-cocked, and is having a knee
> jerk reaction to an Iowa county losing a law suit from the survivors
> of a biker that got his wheel caught in a crack on RAGBRAI and died.
>
> Of course, the bicycle endorsement on the existing license would beg
> the question what do you gotta do to get it, a track stand in the DMV
> parking lot?  Effective Cycling Instructor certification?  In Iowa
> when I got my motorcycle endorsement I had to ride around some cones
> in the parking lot for an officer, in Texas I had to provide a car and
> driver for the officer to follow me around on the street for a
> while... I don't think either state requires actual driving tests in
> this day and age (dang, if that don't scare ya off the roads nothin'
> will)
>
> This may very well backfire on him, even tho the law clearly allows
> bicycle operators on public roads (save Interstate Hiways and where
> otherwise prohibited) licensing bike riders would go a long way to
> changing the misguided perception that the roads were built for cars
> and belong exclusively to them.  It will also contradict the fallacy
> that motor fuel taxes are the sole funding for state & federal hiways.
>
> On the other hand it would provide the government a means of tracking
> bike riders and when they make self propelled  locomotion illegal they
> will know who we are and where we live and be able to herd us into the
> cattle cars just that much easier.

Doesn't affect riders of such events as RAGBRAI at all because....


1 21 b. A license issued pursuant to this section shall not be
1 22 required:
1 23 (1) To ride or operate a bicycle on a municipal street.
1 24 (2) To ride or operate a bicycle on a designated bicycle
1 25 path.
1 26 (3) To participate in a race or event of more than thirty
1 27 participants where one of the primary activities of the race
1 28 or event is riding or operating a bicycle.
1 29 (4) To ride or operate a bicycle as a participant of a
1 30 parade.


The bill doesn't mention (or I didn't see it) a minimum age for
requiring a license and therefore will kids as young as 3 or 4 require
a license to ride around their own neighbourhood.

On the whole, a license to ride a bike is a ridiculous idea.

 

[DennisTheBald]

On Jan 17, 2:01 pm, Marz <[email protected]> wrote:


> Doesn't affect riders of such events as RAGBRAI at all because....
I didn't say it would affect RAGBRAI, I said it was in response to a
lawsuit precipitated by an event that occurred during RAGBRAI.

> The bill doesn't mention (or I didn't see it) a minimum age for
> requiring a license and therefore will kids as young as 3 or 4 require
> a license to ride around their own neighbourhood.

Provided that the kids as young as 3 or 4 lived in a neighborhood that
was serviced by municipal streets (which were specifically exempted)
they would not be required to have a license, which would be required
only to ride on the hiways and secondary roads. Even an old coot like
you would be able to ride around town all you cared to without a
license, only when you attempted to leave town would you need to show
your papers. Well, I guess you sneak out on the rails to trails.

 

[David L. Johnson]

DennisTheBald wrote:

> otherwise prohibited) licensing bike riders would go a long way to
> changing the misguided perception that the roads were built for cars
> and belong exclusively to them.

That has always been an argument I endorse for licensing of cyclists.
But there is nothing in this about non-residents. So, anyone riding
through the town would have to have a license before doing so --- which
they can only get once they arrive. Some catch, that catch-22.

> On the other hand it would provide the government a means of tracking
> bike riders and when they make self propelled locomotion illegal they
> will know who we are

You may notice that they would be able to nab us once we ventured out on
the road, anyway. So, the only way you would avoid capture under your
conspiracy theory is if we stayed off the roads, in which case, they won.

--

David L. Johnson

Let's be straight here. If we find something we can't understand we
like to call it something you can't understand, or indeed even
pronounce.
-- Douglas Adams

 

[Michael Baldwin]

Marz says
>On the whole, a license to ride a bike is
>a ridiculous idea.

...obtaining a license for _anything_ means an individual tested "good
enough" AFTER being able to pay for the so called privilege...everyday
people with licenses issued by government, crash cars, amputate the
wrong leg, over-dose our seniors, rape our children and so
on...politicians can pander all they want, it's ALWAYS about the
money...

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

 

[Brian Huntley]

On Jan 17, 8:50 pm, "David L. Johnson" <[email protected]>
wrote:
[snip]
> But there is nothing in this about non-residents. So, anyone riding
> through the town would have to have a license before doing so --- which
> they can only get once they arrive. Some catch, that catch-22.

No, we aliens are specifically excluded:

4 23 ... A nonresident bicyclist is not required to obtain a
4 24 license.

The bill also defines a person as a resident, citing some existing law
section.

Still - $10 for 5 years is meaningless, but it's the thin edge of the
wedge. Unless the resident definition excludes children, it *is* odd.
I certainly used non-municipal roads before I was an adult.

 

[It's Chris]

From: [email protected] (DennisTheBald)

>On the other hand it would provide the
>government a means of tracking bike
>riders and when they make self propelled
>locomotion illegal they will know who we
>are and where we live and be able to
>herd us into the cattle cars just that
>much easier.

Now that sounds like something the NRA would say. (OOps, I hope I don't
start a flame thead with that one :-3P> )

- -
Compliments of:
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

If you want to E-mail me use:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

My website:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

 

[Bob]

On Jan 17, 12:23 pm, futrino <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=2780
>
> my favorite part is
> A
> 5 26 conviction for failing to carry or refusing to show a license
> 5 27 also results in the revocation of the license and a suspension
> 5 28 of the person's privilege to obtain a license for a period of
> 5 29 one year. A charge of failing to carry or refusal to show a
> 5 30 license will be dismissed if the person produces in court,
> 5 31 prior to the court date indicated on the citation, a license
> 5 32 issued to the person that was valid when the person was
> 5 33 charged with a violation.
> 5 34 When a license is revoked, the date, cause, and tenure of
> 5 35 the revocation must be kept on file with the department. Upon
> 6 1 revocation of a license, the department or a license agent
> 6 2 shall not grant a new license for a period of one year.

As I read the Iowa legislature's site (http://
coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?
category=BillInfo&service=Billbook&ga=82&hbill=SF2005&menu=text) the
bill was introduced Jan. 14, 2008 and referred to Transportation on
the same day. Not a single co-sponsor is named. Unless Iowa's
legislative process is unique that almost certainly means the bill is
dead. There's no harm in Iowans emailing their representatives though.
They might also want to remind Mr. Putney's constituents at election
time of how he/she wastes legislative time (and taxpayer money) on
such picayune non-issues.

Regards,
Bob Hunt