North Dakota Anti-Cycling Bill: SB 2391

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Riley Geary, Feb 1, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Riley Geary

    Riley Geary Guest

    Carl Barrentine wrote on the touring list (http://www.phred.org/mailman/listinfo/touring):

    ==>

    Five of our North Dakota legislators are hoping to pass a Senate Bill, as early as 6 February 2003,
    to register touring and racing bicycles used on roadways/highways outside the city limits.

    Of particular interest to touring cyclists is proposal to add SECTION 4 as part of Senate Bill No.
    2391. This section reads as follows:

    1. "An individual may not ride a bicycle upon any highway outside of the geographical boundaries of
    a city without displaying evidence of registration required by this section. This section does
    not apply to a bicycle with under three gears or a bike being ridden by an individual fourteen
    years of age or under. In addition, this section is limited to a bicycle intended to be ridden
    for long distances, including a cross-country racer, cruiser, touring bike, or racing bike."

    2. "The operator of a bicycle shall register the bicycle with the department and the department
    shall issue upon payment of fifty dollars a decal for placement on the bicycle as evidence of
    registration. A registration is effective for two calendar years." (The proposed penalty for
    violation "may be assessed a fee not to exceed thirty-five dollars," according to the SECTION 1
    AMENDMENT, Section 39-210.1-01 of the North Dakota Century Code.)

    This legislation seems rather cumbersome, as well as potentially unfriendly to touring cyclists. If
    this Bill passes (on 6 February), it seems very likely that unregistered (resident and non-resident)
    cyclists found pedaling the rural roads and highways of North Dakota will be in violation of the
    law, and subject to a $35 fine. Weird!

    Phreds, is this legislation enforced in other States? If so, I sure would like to know. Thanks!
    --carl (the Trek 520 guy from North Dakota)

    <==

    RG replies:

    The complete text of this legislative travisty can be found at
    http://www.state.nd.us/lr/assembly/58-2003/bill_text/DBNC0100.pdf

    It was introduced by Senators Syverson, Flakoll, Thane, and by Representatives Boehning, & Maragos;
    and is scheduled to be voted on by the Senate Transportation Committee on Feb 6. The fact that it
    has more than one sponsor in both houses of the legislature suggests this is no joke (Syverson is
    Vice Chairman of the Political Subdivisions Committee, and Flakoll is Chairman of the Agriculture
    Committee, so they're clearly not political lightweights either), but an effort by the militant
    motorist lobby to discourage cyclists from riding on the rural roads of North Dakota.

    As I read the bill, it would apply to ALL cyclists (at least those 15 and older riding a bike with 3
    or more gears), regardless of whether they are from ND or not, and regardless of whether their bike
    is registered in their home state or not. On the face of it, this attempt at highway robbery (in
    more ways than one) would almost certainly have to be ruled as an unconstitutional infringement of
    our common law right to travel upon the public roads and highways, but it would clearly be much
    better to make sure it is defeated in committee without have to rely on a court challenge to it at
    some future date.

    And this attempt at legalized extortion is not the only problem with SB 2391. ND already has some of
    the worst bike laws in the country on its books (essentially no exceptions to the "ride as far to
    the right as practicable" rule, and a mandatory sidepath law as well), but SB 2391 would also add a
    requirement for cyclists to ride single file at all times as well--no more two-abreast riding as is
    specifically allowed now in ND and 36 other states, as well as the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC)
    maintained by NCUTLO.

    7 other states at least don't prohibit the practice of two-abreast riding either; and of the 6
    states that do require single-file riding, CO allows an exception when no overtaking or approaching
    motor traffic is within 300 feet, MT allows an exception for roads and highways with at least two
    lanes in each direction, and MA at least allows an exception when passing another cyclist. Only HI,
    NE, and VA currently have a single-file rule as draconian as that proposed for ND; and we here in
    Virginia have a bill that among other things would bring VA up to the UVC standard with respect to
    two-abreast riding that has already passed our Senate (but which may get shot down in the House).

    Writing to the sponsors and suggesting that this bill might not be in the best interests of ND
    tourism is probably a waste of time, since these particular guys clearly don't want any cyclists
    riding through their state, regardless of how much money they might spend en route--but those so
    inclined can try the following addresses / phone numbers:

    State Sen John Syverson [email protected] 701-232-2897 State Sen Tim Flakoll
    [email protected] 701-367-5954 State Sen Russell Thane [email protected] 701-642-8134 State Rep
    Randy Boehning [email protected] 701-281-0956 State Rep Andrew Maragos [email protected]
    701-852-8747

    A better strategy would be to lobby the members of the Senate Transportation Committee before they
    vote on SB 2391 Feb 6:

    State Sen Thomas L Trenbeath (Chair) [email protected] 701-265-3184 State Sen Duaine C Espegard
    (Vice Chair) [email protected] 701-777-6549 State Sen Dennis Bercier [email protected]
    701-477-7810 State Sen Duane Mutch [email protected] 701-343-2302 State Sen Dave Nething no email,
    try 701-252-7385 State Sen Ryan M Taylor [email protected] 701-662-4077

    Likewise, any cyclists who can arrange to be in Bismark Thursday morning (~10 am), Feb 6, should be
    sure to attend the Senate Transportation Committee meeting (in the Lewis and Clark Room) and let
    them know SB 2391 is completely unacceptable in its current form, and will certainly be challenged
    in the courts if it is passed into law.

    Riley R Geary Arlington, VA LAB Rep on NCUTLO 1998-2001
     
    Tags:


  2. On Sat, 1 Feb 2003 21:19:20 -0500, "Riley Geary" <[email protected]> said:

    >This legislation seems rather cumbersome, as well as potentially unfriendly to touring cyclists. If
    >this Bill passes (on 6 February), it seems very likely that unregistered (resident and
    >non-resident) cyclists found pedaling the rural roads and highways of North Dakota will be in
    >violation of the law, and subject to a $35 fine.

    Paying the $35 fine is cheaper than paying the $50 registration fee!

    --

    I think. Therefore, I am not a conservative! ------ http://www.todayslastword.org -------
     
  3. Zoot Katz

    Zoot Katz Guest

    Sun, 02 Feb 2003 04:01:50 GMT, <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Pooing Is
    Cool) wrote:

    >
    >Paying the $35 fine is cheaper than paying the $50 registration fee!

    To fine people just passing through amounts to a road toll for bicycles.
    --
    zk
     
  4. Crispy

    Crispy Guest

    I'd wonder if the LBS and local cycling clubs are going to fight it.

    Are there any annual summer group rides (RAGBRAI sort of things) that go through ND? If so I bet
    they won't this summer. Wonder how the local businesses that cater to these events feel? Diners,
    hotels, campgrounds, charity groups, etc. No more windfall income for them.

    PS. Since I own a recumbent tricycle, by strict interpretation of their definition, I guess I'm
    exempt? WOW! Finally a loophole in my favor!
     
  5. On Sat, 1 Feb 2003 21:19:20 -0500 in rec.bicycles.misc, "Riley Geary" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > This legislation seems rather cumbersome, as well as potentially unfriendly to touring cyclists.
    > If this Bill passes (on 6 February), it seems very likely that unregistered (resident and
    > non-resident) cyclists found pedaling the rural roads and highways of North Dakota will be in
    > violation of the law, and subject to a $35 fine. Weird!
    >
    It violates the Commerce Clause of the U. S. Constitution if non-resident cyclists have to
    register. U. S. citizens have a constitutional right to travel in all states without paying any
    kind of entry fee.
     
  6. On Sat, 1 Feb 2003 21:19:20 -0500 in rec.bicycles.misc, "Riley Geary" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Five of our North Dakota legislators are hoping to pass a Senate Bill, as early as 6 February
    > 2003, to register touring and racing bicycles used on roadways/highways outside the city limits.
    >
    well, not quite. it's scheduled for a *hearing* before the transportation committee on feb 6.
    http://www.state.nd.us/lr/assembly/58-2003/bill_actions/BA2391.html

    of course, it would be preferable if the offending Section was deleted at this hearing, if the bill
    actually passes the committee. the rest of the bill is simply updating the bicycle portions of the
    traffic code.

    the members of the committee are:

    (R) Thomas L. Trenbeath - Chairmant [email protected]
    (S) Duaine C. Espegard - Vice Chairman [email protected]
    (T) Dennis Bercier [email protected]
    (U) Duane Mutch [email protected]
    (V) Dave Nething (no email)
    (W) Ryan M. Taylor [email protected]

    I'm sure that a polite email expressing concern that this Section 4 of Senate Bill 2391 would not
    only be a detriment to tourism but a violation of the Commerce Clause of Section 8 the U. S.
    Constitution would be useful. Surely this newsgroup can generate several hundred emails to each of
    these committee members!

    Aren't online legislative databases wonderful? The Net makes lobbying legislatures soooo easy if
    folks just use the available tools to search out the bill, find the status, and email the
    appropriate committee. Let your fingers do the walking! ;^)

    Riley, be sure to let us know what happens, especially if they make any comment in the meeting about
    receiving emails on this. I'm curious to see what happens.
     
  7. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Sat, 1 Feb 2003 21:19:20 -0500, "Riley Geary" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >1. "An individual may not ride a bicycle upon any highway outside of the geographical boundaries of
    > a city without displaying evidence of registration required by this section.

    No mention of trikes or unicycles - the use of the word "bicycle" rather than "pedal cycle" is
    usually a sure sign of legislation drafted by those who know nothing about their subject.

    >In addition, this section is limited to a bicycle intended to be ridden for long distances,
    >including a cross-country racer, cruiser, touring bike, or racing bike."

    And you have to wonder why.

    >2. "The operator of a bicycle shall register the bicycle with the department and the department
    > shall issue upon payment of fifty dollars a decal for placement on the bicycle as evidence of
    > registration. A registration is effective for two calendar years."

    Holy cow! You could ride a bike on public roads for several thousand years without causing $50 worth
    of wear and tear on the road! The reason most countries don't bother registering bikes is that any
    reasonably proportionate charge is dwarfed by the costs of collection.

    >And this attempt at legalized extortion is not the only problem with SB 2391. ND already has some
    >of the worst bike laws in the country on its books (essentially no exceptions to the "ride as far
    >to the right as practicable" rule, and a mandatory sidepath law as well), but SB 2391 would also
    >add a requirement for cyclists to ride single file at all times as well--no more two-abreast riding
    >as is specifically allowed now in ND and 36 other states, as well as the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC)
    >maintained by NCUTLO.

    Is that constitutional? I wonder if restrictions on mobility based on colour or income would be as
    acceptable?

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
  8. Robertf

    Robertf Guest

    Sound like they have a budget crunch like in Massachusettes. They need more money! $50 is much more
    than a car here in NH.

    "Riley Geary" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Carl Barrentine wrote on the touring list (http://www.phred.org/mailman/listinfo/touring):
    >
    > ==>
    >
    > Five of our North Dakota legislators are hoping to pass a Senate Bill, as early as 6 February
    > 2003, to register touring and racing bicycles used on roadways/highways outside the city limits.
    >
    > Of particular interest to touring cyclists is proposal to add SECTION 4 as part of Senate Bill No.
    > 2391. This section reads as follows:
    >
    > 1. "An individual may not ride a bicycle upon any highway outside of the geographical boundaries
    > of a city without displaying evidence of registration required by this section. This section
    > does not apply to a bicycle with under three gears or a bike being ridden by an individual
    > fourteen years of age or under. In addition, this section is limited to a bicycle intended to
    > be ridden for long distances, including a cross-country racer, cruiser, touring bike, or racing
    > bike."
    >
    > 2. "The operator of a bicycle shall register the bicycle with the department and the department
    > shall issue upon payment of fifty dollars a decal for placement on the bicycle as evidence of
    > registration. A registration is effective for two calendar years." (The proposed penalty for
    > violation "may be assessed a fee not to exceed thirty-five dollars," according to the SECTION 1
    > AMENDMENT, Section 39-210.1-01 of the North Dakota Century Code.)
    >
    > This legislation seems rather cumbersome, as well as potentially unfriendly to touring cyclists.
    > If this Bill passes (on 6 February), it seems very likely that unregistered (resident and
    > non-resident) cyclists found pedaling the rural roads and highways of North Dakota will be in
    > violation of the law, and subject to a $35 fine. Weird!
    >
    > Phreds, is this legislation enforced in other States? If so, I sure would like to know. Thanks!
    > --carl (the Trek 520 guy from North Dakota)
    >
    > <==
    >
    >
    >
    > RG replies:
    >
    > The complete text of this legislative travisty can be found at
    > http://www.state.nd.us/lr/assembly/58-2003/bill_text/DBNC0100.pdf
    >
    > It was introduced by Senators Syverson, Flakoll, Thane, and by Representatives Boehning, &
    > Maragos; and is scheduled to be voted on by
    the
    > Senate Transportation Committee on Feb 6. The fact that it has more than one sponsor in both
    > houses of the legislature suggests this is no joke (Syverson is Vice Chairman of the Political
    > Subdivisions Committee, and Flakoll is Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, so they're clearly
    > not political lightweights either), but an effort by the militant motorist
    lobby
    > to discourage cyclists from riding on the rural roads of North Dakota.
    >
    > As I read the bill, it would apply to ALL cyclists (at least those 15 and older riding a bike with
    > 3 or more gears), regardless of whether they are from ND or not, and regardless of whether their
    > bike is registered in
    their
    > home state or not. On the face of it, this attempt at highway robbery (in more ways than one)
    > would almost certainly have to be ruled as an unconstitutional infringement of our common law
    > right to travel upon the public roads and highways, but it would clearly be much better to make
    sure
    > it is defeated in committee without have to rely on a court challenge to
    it
    > at some future date.
    >
    > And this attempt at legalized extortion is not the only problem with SB 2391. ND already has some
    > of the worst bike laws in the country on its books (essentially no exceptions to the "ride as far
    > to the right as practicable" rule, and a mandatory sidepath law as well), but SB 2391
    would
    > also add a requirement for cyclists to ride single file at all times as well--no more two-abreast
    > riding as is specifically allowed now in ND and
    36
    > other states, as well as the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) maintained by NCUTLO.
    >
    > 7 other states at least don't prohibit the practice of two-abreast riding either; and of the 6
    > states that do require single-file riding, CO allows
    an
    > exception when no overtaking or approaching motor traffic is within 300 feet, MT allows an
    > exception for roads and highways with at least two
    lanes
    > in each direction, and MA at least allows an exception when passing
    another
    > cyclist. Only HI, NE, and VA currently have a single-file rule as
    draconian
    > as that proposed for ND; and we here in Virginia have a bill that among other things would bring
    > VA up to the UVC standard with respect to two-abreast riding that has already passed our Senate
    > (but which may get shot down in the House).
    >
    > Writing to the sponsors and suggesting that this bill might not be in the best interests of ND
    > tourism is probably a waste of time, since these particular guys clearly don't want any cyclists
    > riding through their
    state,
    > regardless of how much money they might spend en route--but those so inclined can try the
    > following addresses / phone numbers:
    >
    > State Sen John Syverson [email protected] 701-232-2897 State Sen Tim Flakoll
    > [email protected] 701-367-5954 State Sen Russell Thane [email protected] 701-642-8134 State
    > Rep Randy Boehning [email protected] 701-281-0956 State Rep Andrew Maragos
    > [email protected] 701-852-8747
    >
    > A better strategy would be to lobby the members of the Senate
    Transportation
    > Committee before they vote on SB 2391 Feb 6:
    >
    > State Sen Thomas L Trenbeath (Chair) [email protected] 701-265-3184 State Sen Duaine C Espegard
    > (Vice Chair) [email protected]
    701-777-6549
    > State Sen Dennis Bercier [email protected] 701-477-7810 State Sen Duane Mutch
    > [email protected] 701-343-2302 State Sen Dave Nething no email, try 701-252-7385 State Sen Ryan M
    > Taylor [email protected] 701-662-4077
    >
    > Likewise, any cyclists who can arrange to be in Bismark Thursday morning (~10 am), Feb 6, should
    > be sure to attend the Senate Transportation Committee meeting (in the Lewis and Clark Room) and
    > let them know SB 2391
    is
    > completely unacceptable in its current form, and will certainly be challenged in the courts if it
    > is passed into law.
    >
    >
    > Riley R Geary Arlington, VA LAB Rep on NCUTLO 1998-2001
     
  9. Riley Geary

    Riley Geary Guest

    "Dennis P. Harris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Sat, 1 Feb 2003 21:19:20 -0500 in rec.bicycles.misc, "Riley Geary"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > Five of our North Dakota legislators are hoping to pass a Senate Bill, as early as 6 February
    > > 2003, to register touring and racing bicycles used on roadways/highways outside the city limits.
    > >

    Please note that these are not my state legislators, as I'm in Virginia ,and this message was
    originally posted by a ND cyclist to the bike touring list at www.phred.org.

    > well, not quite. it's scheduled for a *hearing* before the transportation committee on feb 6.
    > http://www.state.nd.us/lr/assembly/58-2003/bill_actions/BA2391.html
    >
    > of course, it would be preferable if the offending Section was deleted at this hearing, if the
    > bill actually passes the committee. the rest of the bill is simply updating the bicycle portions
    > of the traffic code.
    >

    No, the rest of SB 2391 is nearly as objectionable as Section 4. ND already has some of the worst
    bike laws in the country on its books (essentially no exceptions to the "ride as far to the right as
    practicable" rule, and a mandatory sidepath law as well), but Section 2 of SB 2391 would also add a
    completely unnecessary and discriminatory requirement for all cyclists to ride single file at all
    times--no more two-abreast riding as is specifically allowed now in the Uniform Vehicle Code and 36
    other states besides ND (and of the remaining states, 7 make no mention of this subject at all, and
    3 provide at least some exceptions to their single-file requirement. Only HI, NE, and VA currently
    have a single-file rule as draconian as that proposed for ND; and we here in Virginia have a reform
    bill that has just passed our state senate which would, among other things, adopt the UVC language
    regarding two-abreast riding).

    Indeed, the *only* aspect of SB 2391 that might be worth supporting is Section 3, which requires
    bicycles ridden at night to be equipped with a red taillight visible from 500 feet to the rear (in
    addition to the already required white front light); but since it replaces the previously required
    standard rear reflector with vague nonsense about bicyclists having to wear "an outer garmet with
    some reflectionized(!) material", this clearly needs to be rewritten before it could be considered
    on its merits.

    The complete text of this proposed anti-cycling legislation can be found at
    http://www.state.nd.us/lr/assembly/58-2003/bill_text/DBNC0100.pdf

    > the members of the committee are:
    >
    > (R) Thomas L. Trenbeath - Chairmant [email protected]
    > (R) Duaine C. Espegard - Vice Chairman [email protected]
    > (D) Dennis Bercier [email protected]
    > (R) Duane Mutch [email protected]
    > (R) Dave Nething (no email)
    > (D) Ryan M. Taylor [email protected]
    >
    > I'm sure that a polite email expressing concern that this Section 4 of Senate Bill 2391 would not
    > only be a detriment to tourism but a violation of the Commerce Clause of Section 8 the U. S.
    > Constitution would be useful. Surely this newsgroup can generate several hundred emails to each of
    > these committee members!
    >

    There is so much wrong with SB 2391 that it isn't worth trying to salvage even if Section 4 were to
    be removed, so it really should be opposed in its entirety, and the legislators urged to at least
    adopt the UVC language regarding bicycles instead. Needless to say, it's always much easier to kill
    an objectionable bill in committee rather than trying to ammend or oppose the bill after it's
    already been favorably reported out to be voted on by the whole house or senate.

    > Aren't online legislative databases wonderful? The Net makes lobbying legislatures soooo easy if
    > folks just use the available tools to search out the bill, find the status, and email the
    > appropriate committee. Let your fingers do the walking! ;^)
    >
    > Riley, be sure to let us know what happens, especially if they make any comment in the meeting
    > about receiving emails on this. I'm curious to see what happens.
    >

    Since Bismark, ND, in early Febuary, is not terribly high on my list of places to try and visit, I
    rather doubt I'll be attending in person. But I will pass along anything I find out about this
    bill's fate, thanks!

    Riley Geary Arlngton, VA
     
  10. Mike Kruger

    Mike Kruger Guest

    "robertf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:4La%[email protected]...
    > Sound like they have a budget crunch like in Massachusettes. They need
    more
    > money! $50 is much more than a car here in NH.

    That's probably it. Note that Adventure Cycling has two routes through ND (transcontinental and
    Lewis & Clark). Along the route, the touring cyclists probably aren't anywhere near plentiful, but
    are likely to be a familiar site. They are from out of state, and using the roads, so why not try to
    figure out a way to tax them?
     
  11. Doug Huffman

    Doug Huffman Guest

    Sufficient law to make a Bad Guy into a good citizen cannot be written. One Bad Law can make a
    citizen a felon. Be careful.

    "Riley Geary" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Dennis P. Harris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > On Sat, 1 Feb 2003 21:19:20 -0500 in rec.bicycles.misc, "Riley Geary" <[email protected]>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > > > Five of our North Dakota legislators are hoping to pass a Senate Bill, as early as 6 February
    > > > 2003, to register touring and racing bicycles used on roadways/highways outside the city
    > > > limits.
    > > >
    >
    > Please note that these are not my state legislators, as I'm in Virginia
    ,and
    > this message was originally posted by a ND cyclist to the bike touring
    list
    > at www.phred.org.
    >
    > > well, not quite. it's scheduled for a *hearing* before the transportation committee on feb 6.
    > > http://www.state.nd.us/lr/assembly/58-2003/bill_actions/BA2391.html
    > >
    > > of course, it would be preferable if the offending Section was deleted at this hearing, if the
    > > bill actually passes the committee. the rest of the bill is simply updating the bicycle portions
    > > of the traffic code.
    > >
    >
    > No, the rest of SB 2391 is nearly as objectionable as Section 4. ND
    already
    > has some of the worst bike laws in the country on its books (essentially
    no
    > exceptions to the "ride as far to the right as practicable" rule, and a mandatory sidepath law as
    > well), but Section 2 of SB 2391 would also add a completely unnecessary and discriminatory
    > requirement for all cyclists to ride single file at all times--no more two-abreast riding as is
    specifically
    > allowed now in the Uniform Vehicle Code and 36 other states besides ND
    (and
    > of the remaining states, 7 make no mention of this subject at all, and 3 provide at least some
    > exceptions to their single-file requirement. Only
    HI,
    > NE, and VA currently have a single-file rule as draconian as that proposed for ND; and we here in
    > Virginia have a reform bill that has just passed
    our
    > state senate which would, among other things, adopt the UVC language regarding two-abreast
    > riding).
    >
    > Indeed, the *only* aspect of SB 2391 that might be worth supporting is Section 3, which requires
    > bicycles ridden at night to be equipped with a
    red
    > taillight visible from 500 feet to the rear (in addition to the already required white front
    > light); but since it replaces the previously required standard rear reflector with vague nonsense
    > about bicyclists having to
    wear
    > "an outer garmet with some reflectionized(!) material", this clearly needs to be rewritten before
    > it could be considered on its merits.
    >
    > The complete text of this proposed anti-cycling legislation can be found
    at
    > http://www.state.nd.us/lr/assembly/58-2003/bill_text/DBNC0100.pdf
    >
    >
    > > the members of the committee are:
    > >
    > > (R) Thomas L. Trenbeath - Chairmant [email protected]
    > > (R) Duaine C. Espegard - Vice Chairman [email protected]
    > > (D) Dennis Bercier [email protected]
    > > (R) Duane Mutch [email protected]
    > > (R) Dave Nething (no email)
    > > (D) Ryan M. Taylor [email protected]
    > >
    > > I'm sure that a polite email expressing concern that this Section 4 of Senate Bill 2391 would
    > > not only be a detriment to tourism but a violation of the Commerce Clause of Section 8 the U. S.
    > > Constitution would be useful. Surely this newsgroup can generate several hundred emails to each
    > > of these committee members!
    > >
    >
    > There is so much wrong with SB 2391 that it isn't worth trying to salvage even if Section 4 were
    > to be removed, so it really should be opposed in
    its
    > entirety, and the legislators urged to at least adopt the UVC language regarding bicycles instead.
    > Needless to say, it's always much easier to kill an objectionable bill in committee rather than
    > trying to ammend or oppose the bill after it's already been favorably reported out to be voted on
    > by the whole house or senate.
    >
    > > Aren't online legislative databases wonderful? The Net makes lobbying legislatures soooo easy if
    > > folks just use the available tools to search out the bill, find the status, and email the
    > > appropriate committee. Let your fingers do the walking! ;^)
    > >
    > > Riley, be sure to let us know what happens, especially if they make any comment in the meeting
    > > about receiving emails on this. I'm curious to see what happens.
    > >
    >
    > Since Bismark, ND, in early Febuary, is not terribly high on my list of places to try and visit, I
    > rather doubt I'll be attending in person. But
    I
    > will pass along anything I find out about this bill's fate, thanks!
    >
    > Riley Geary Arlngton, VA
     
  12. Ray Heindl

    Ray Heindl Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Sat, 1 Feb 2003 21:19:20 -0500, "Riley Geary" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>1. "An individual may not ride a bicycle upon any highway outside of the geographical boundaries
    >> of a city without displaying evidence of registration required by this section.
    >
    > No mention of trikes or unicycles - the use of the word "bicycle" rather than "pedal cycle" is
    > usually a sure sign of legislation drafted by those who know nothing about their subject.

    There's probably already a definition of "bicycle" in the state laws. I've never needed to look at
    ND's definition, but in Ohio bicycles include tricycles if the paired wheels are in the back, but
    not if they're in the front (as is the case with some recumbents). There likely aren't enough
    long-distance unicyclists for the state legislators to get their knickers in a knot about them.

    --
    Ray Heindl
     
  13. In article <[email protected]>, Ray Heindl <[email protected]> wrote:
    >There likely aren't enough long-distance unicyclists for the state legislators to get their
    >knickers in a knot about them.

    ...Though a google search on "long-distance unicyclists" will reveal that there are more than one
    might have assumed.--b.
     
  14. schikerbiker

    schikerbiker Guest

    "Dennis P. Harris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > It violates the Commerce Clause of the U. S. Constitution if non-resident cyclists have to
    > register. U. S. citizens have a constitutional right to travel in all states without paying any
    > kind of entry fee.

    Not correct. Go read up on moped laws for example. Different for each state and even each city. If
    you ride one from a state that doesn't require tags and insurance to a state that requires tags and
    insurance on a moped guess what..., either you get the tags and insurance or you don't pass through
    the state.

    Now in saying this, it is a bad bill.
     
  15. "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Sat, 1 Feb 2003 21:19:20 -0500, "Riley Geary" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >1. "An individual may not ride a bicycle upon any highway outside of the geographical boundaries
    > > of a city without displaying evidence of registration required by this section.
    >
    ...stuff deleted

    So, how does the law apply to tandems since it seems to apply only to individuals?

    Rick
     
  16. Mark Hickey

    Mark Hickey Guest

    "Riley Geary" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Of particular interest to touring cyclists is proposal to add SECTION 4 as part of Senate Bill No.
    >2391. This section reads as follows:
    >
    >1. "An individual may not ride a bicycle upon any highway outside of the geographical boundaries of
    > a city without displaying evidence of registration required by this section. This section does
    > not apply to a bicycle with under three gears or a bike being ridden by an individual fourteen
    > years of age or under. In addition, this section is limited to a bicycle intended to be ridden
    > for long distances, including a cross-country racer, cruiser, touring bike, or racing bike."
    >
    >2. "The operator of a bicycle shall register the bicycle with the department and the department
    > shall issue upon payment of fifty dollars a decal for placement on the bicycle as evidence of
    > registration. A registration is effective for two calendar years." (The proposed penalty for
    > violation "may be assessed a fee not to exceed thirty-five dollars," according to the SECTION 1
    > AMENDMENT, Section 39-210.1-01 of the North Dakota Century Code.)

    Normally laws are passed in response to some valid societal need. Just what problem ARE they trying
    to solve with THIS bit of nonsensical legislation?

    Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
     
  17. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 22:08:12 GMT, "Rick Donnelly" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >So, how does the law apply to tandems since it seems to apply only to individuals?

    Excellent point. Like I said, the wording seems to indicate ignorance. Well, that's not a surprise
    I suppose.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
  18. Ray Heindl wrote:
    > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On Sat, 1 Feb 2003 21:19:20 -0500, "Riley Geary" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>No mention of trikes or unicycles - the use of the word "bicycle" rather than "pedal cycle" is
    >>usually a sure sign of legislation drafted by those who know nothing about their subject.
    >
    >
    > There's probably already a definition of "bicycle" in the state laws. I've never needed to look at
    > ND's definition, but in Ohio bicycles include tricycles if the paired wheels are in the back, but
    > not if they're in the front (as is the case with some recumbents). There likely aren't enough
    > long-distance unicyclists for the state legislators to get their knickers in a knot about them.
    >

    And even fewer with more than three speeds.
     
  19. On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 23:04:45 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc, Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Normally laws are passed in response to some valid societal need. Just what problem ARE they
    > trying to solve with THIS bit of nonsensical legislation?
    >
    1. some hick is tired of having to wait to pass cycle tourists passing through ND
    2. someone figures they ought to tax out of state bike tourists for using the roads in ND.
    3. when passing new taxes to solve your budget problem, try to tax nonresidents
     
  20. Mitch Haley

    Mitch Haley Guest

    Mike Kruger wrote:
    > They are from out of state, and using the roads, so why not try to figure out a way to tax them?

    You can't do it any more than you can force me to get a new driver's license every time I cross a
    state line. If my bike is legal in Michigan, I can ride it in any state of the Union.

    The states do not regulate interstate travel and commerce. They can, however, do unpleasant and
    stupid things to their own residents, and this law should be fought on those grounds. I paid $29 to
    renew my car's registration a couple of months ago, and I've never heard of a bike license fee over
    $5. Mitch.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...