North Dakota Anti-Cycling Bill: SB 2391

[Riley Geary]

"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "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?
>

The "problem" of too many touring cyclists clogging their rural roads and highways?

It certainly isn't a safety issue, with just 1 cyclist being killed every other year on average over
the past decade according to NHTSA's traffic fatality data; and despite a tiny population base of
~640,000, the resulting average annual fatality rate of less than 0.10 per 100,000 people is also
the lowest of any state in the Union--strongly suggesting that there aren't a whole lot of bicycles
being ridden on the roads of ND to begin with. But then, what else could we expect from a state that
is such an attractive place to live that it actually has less residents now than in 1920!

Riley Geary Arlington, VA

 

[Gary German]

Are you sure this isn't a hoax? A quick Google search did turn up a pdf file related to SB2391, but
it makes no mention of bicycles.

The pdf file is at:

http://ranch.state.nd.us/LR/01/bill_text/BAJP0200.pdf

I cannot find any other info to indicate that this bill exists, as stated, and it has the scent of
an urban legend.

GG

"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

 

[Bill]

Here is a valid link

http://www.state.nd.us/lr/assembly/58-2003/bill_text/DBNC0100.pdf

But it sure was a good idea to ask. Bill Brannon

"Gary German" <gary_g@charter_NOSPAM_.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Are you sure this isn't a hoax? A quick Google search did turn up a pdf file related to SB2391,
> but it makes no mention of bicycles.
>
> The pdf file is at:
>
> http://ranch.state.nd.us/LR/01/bill_text/BAJP0200.pdf
>
> I cannot find any other info to indicate that this bill exists, as stated, and it has the scent of
> an urban legend.
>
> GG
>
> "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
> >
> >
>

 

[Riley Geary]

"Gary German" <gary_g@charter_NOSPAM_.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Are you sure this isn't a hoax? A quick Google search did turn up a pdf file related to SB2391,
> but it makes no mention of bicycles.
>
> The pdf file is at:
>
> http://ranch.state.nd.us/LR/01/bill_text/BAJP0200.pdf
>
> I cannot find any other info to indicate that this bill exists, as stated, and it has the scent of
> an urban legend.
>

That was SB 2391 for the 57th legislative assembly session of ND. Try
http://www.state.nd.us/lr/assembly/58-2003/bill_text/DBNC0100.pdf for the current (58th)
legislative assembly.

Riley Geary Arlington, VA

 

[Brian Huntley]

"Riley Geary" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > That was SB 2391 for the 57th legislative assembly session of ND. Try
> http://www.state.nd.us/lr/assembly/58-2003/bill_text/DBNC0100.pdf for the current (58th)
> legislative assembly.
>

Hmm - reading the bill (or at least the ammendments posted) shows a lot of glaring problems. First,
rear reflectors are no longer required but a light is. Currently, a light may be used IN ADDITION
(not replacing) a reflector. This seems like a step backwards.

Second, it mentions the reflective garment requirement without defining it - can I wear a spangly
sock and comply? Is a leg band a 'garment?' How about a "Bell" sticker on the back of a helmet?

Third, it requires a cyclist to ride on a bike path and not the road, should a bike path exist. It
does say 'usable' but would that mean 'free from skaters, strollers, and dogs walkers?' These paths,
of course, would be funded by the touring cyclists' fees and fines.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:53:29 -0500, "Rich Clark" <[email protected]> wrote:

>This whole thing smells to me a lot like that legislative attempt in Texas last year to limit the
>roads usable by cyclists. That is, backlash against roadies "getting in the way" of drivers on
>rural roads, and somebody having the bright idea that by "licensing" them they'd be giving police a
>valid excuse for getting them off the road.

The perfect excuse to introduce a bill ridding the urban roads of all those tiresome, polluting cars
which slow us down with their gridlock and kil us with their abysmal driving

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.

 

[Hunrobe]

>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?

I think Mike Kruger and others have mentioned the most likely reasoning behind the proposed bill-
tax revenue. As for the "valid societal need" being addressed, how many of the bill's sponsors are
facing re-election?

I can imagine the floor debate....

Sponsor- "It's not uncommon to see bicyclists travelling across our State. I would conservatively
estimate that over 100,000 bicyclists cross our State every year."

(Translation- "They *cross* our State. We're talking non-residents here, folks. You know, the ones
that can't vote for or against our re-election. As for that 100,000 figure, I haven't the slightest
idea of the true number but it sounds good doesn't it?")

"At just $50 per bicycle that's FIVE MILLION dollars in revenue. Imagine what that amount of new
revenue could do for the people of our State!"

(Translation- "We'll look like we're giving our constituents something for nothing and we
legislators can get our idiot sons-in-law jobs mailing out bicycle registrations.")

"This is a win-win proposition."

(Translation- "This is an opportunity to look like we are earning our paychecks without pissing off
any ND voters.")

Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe our resident troll is riding his infinitely heavy bicycle on ND
roads and they need money to repair all of the damage he's done. <g>

Regards, Bob Hunt

 

[Isaac Brumer]

It's OK to try and make money off of people who come to visit your attractive state/city/village (as
long as you don't get too greedy.) Some locales have "bed & booze" taxes. Some state parks charge
for entry or parking. But in each of these cases, the state/city/village is "easy to do business
with." You pay your park fee at the entrance. You pay your tax with your tab and the innkeeper
passes it along.

That's the problem with this bill, besides the likely cyclophobia. It's $50, whether you're cycling
in the state for 2 years or two minutes. How about a visitor for a day? How does one go about paying
the fee? Do you need to find your nearest DMV? Wait on line? How do you get there? How about nights
and weekends? Is there a grace period? A day pass? How about reciprocity with other states? If all
fifty states institute registration, do I pay once or per state?

Michael Moore did a skit, years ago, on his show "TV Nation" about ND being the least visited state
in the USA (they sent Karen Duffy to climb snowbanks to investigate.) Will this encourage visitors?

The NY Times recently ran an article about ND's declining population and cited talk about how a new
"homestead act" might be necessary to encourage people to live and set up businesses there.

That such a bill was tried in TX (and now quietly in ND, a state with realtively few people and
fewer cyclists) tells me that there's someone out there who's doing this as as "experiment."

Isaac

[email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >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?
>
>
> I think Mike Kruger and others have mentioned the most likely reasoning behind the proposed bill-
> tax revenue. As for the "valid societal need" being addressed, how many of the bill's sponsors are
> facing re-election?
>
> I can imagine the floor debate....
>
> Sponsor- "It's not uncommon to see bicyclists travelling across our State. I would conservatively
> estimate that over 100,000 bicyclists cross our State every year."
>
> (Translation- "They *cross* our State. We're talking non-residents here, folks. You know, the ones
> that can't vote for or against our re-election. As for that 100,000 figure, I haven't the
> slightest idea of the true number but it sounds good doesn't it?")
>
> "At just $50 per bicycle that's FIVE MILLION dollars in revenue. Imagine what that amount of new
> revenue could do for the people of our State!"
>
> (Translation- "We'll look like we're giving our constituents something for nothing and we
> legislators can get our idiot sons-in-law jobs mailing out bicycle registrations.")
>
> "This is a win-win proposition."
>
> (Translation- "This is an opportunity to look like we are earning our paychecks without pissing
> off any ND voters.")
>
> Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe our resident troll is riding his infinitely heavy bicycle on ND
> roads and they need money to repair all of the damage he's done. <g>
>
> Regards, Bob Hunt

 

[Russlu]

Here is an interesting article about the senator who is sponsoring this bill from the
Bismarck Tribune.

http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2003/02/05/news/local/nws2.txt

It seems that he was accused of intentionally striking a bicyclist on a road north of Fargo, North
Dakota in 1997.

 

[Jake Khuon]

### On Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:01:37 GMT, [email protected] (Isaac Brumer)
### [IB] casually decided to expound upon rec.bicycles.misc the following thoughts about Re: North
### Dakota Anti-Cycling Bill: SB 2391:

IB> Michael Moore did a skit, years ago, on his show "TV Nation" about ND being the least visited
IB> state in the USA (they sent Karen Duffy to climb snowbanks to investigate.) Will this encourage
IB> visitors?

I remember that skit when it aired. It was particularly amusing to my friends and I as we were
watching it from a dorm room at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks, ND in the middle of
winter. |8^)

--
/*===================[ Jake Khuon <[email protected]> ]======================+
| Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | --------------- | for Effective Bandwidth
| Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| N E T W O R K S |
+=========================================================================*/

 

[Chluu907]

They have something similar in Davis, California. You can be ticketed for not having a registration
sticker on your bike. My girlfriend's friend got a RUI. I'm not sure what came of it though. I've
ridden in Davis several times but have never been accosted. It'll be a cold day in hell before I
stick an ugly metalic sticker on my frame.

Claude

 

[Dennis P. Harri]

On Wed, 05 Feb 2003 15:08:43 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc, RussLu <[email protected]> wrote:

> http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2003/02/05/news/local/nws2.txt

nope. it's not there. this link is to a story about a county commissioner's recall.

 

[Isaac Brumer]

[email protected] (Chluu907) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> They have something similar in Davis, California. You can be ticketed for not having a
> registration sticker on your bike. My girlfriend's friend got a RUI. I'm not sure what came of it
> though. I've ridden in Davis several times but have never been accosted. It'll be a cold day in
> hell before I stick an ugly metalic sticker on my frame.
>
> Claude

Yes, it seems that some locales do have such laws (though it's also possible that registration is a
private thing, e.g., you need a sticker to park in a rack at a university.) Do they apply to
residents only (so if I visit Davis, CA and show ID that I'm not from there, I'm OK?)

If they're for visitors too, how does one know if registration is required and how to register?

Is this just a two-wheeled variety of a revenue producing "speed-trap?"

Isaac

 

[Pooing Is Cool]

On 6 Feb 2003 10:01:09 -0800, [email protected] (Isaac Brumer) said:

>Yes, it seems that some locales do have such laws (though it's also possible that registration is a
>private thing, e.g., you need a sticker to park in a rack at a university.) Do they apply to
>residents only (so if I visit Davis, CA and show ID that I'm not from there, I'm OK?)

What if your bike doesn't have a serial number?

--

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

 

[Thomas Reynolds]

[email protected] (Isaac Brumer) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Chluu907) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > They have something similar in Davis, California. You can be ticketed for not having a
> > registration sticker on your bike. My girlfriend's friend got a RUI. I'm not sure what came of
> > it though. I've ridden in Davis several times but have never been accosted. It'll be a cold day
> > in hell before I stick an ugly metalic sticker on my frame.
> >
> > Claude
>
> Yes, it seems that some locales do have such laws (though it's also possible that registration is
> a private thing, e.g., you need a sticker to park in a rack at a university.) Do they apply to
> residents only (so if I visit Davis, CA and show ID that I'm not from there, I'm OK?)
>
> ......
>
> Isaac

I didn't know this. Davis, California is far and away the most bicycle friendly city I have ever
been in or heard of. This registration requirement comes as quite a surprise.

Tom

 

[Riley Geary]

"Dennis P. Harris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Wed, 05 Feb 2003 15:08:43 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc, RussLu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2003/02/05/news/local/nws2.txt
>
> nope. it's not there. this link is to a story about a county commissioner's recall.
>

No idea what happened to it, as it's not in their archives either. Fortunately, someone did post the
text of the article elsewhere, so here it
is:

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.

But bicycle enthusiasts from all over the world want to stop the bill in its tracks, including a
Fargo man who says Syverson harassed and then intentionally struck his bike while he and two friends
were bicycling on Cass County road 31, a few miles north of Fargo.

According to a Cass County Sheriff's report on the incident, Paul Sadosky and two friends were
riding their bikes southbound when Syverson approached them from behind in a pickup. The bicyclists
said Syverson began honking on his horn continuously, even though they were riding single file along
the side of the road and there was no oncoming traffic.

Sadosky told the sheriff's deputy that Syverson then pulled in front of him and abruptly turned in
front of his bike and hit the brakes. Sadosky said he tried to stop but ran into Syverson's rear
bumper and into the tailgate, totaling his bike.

According to the sheriff's report, one of the other bikers then tried to stop Syverson by blocking
his pickup with his bike, but Syverson backed up and left. The bicyclists got his license number,
however, and called the sheriff's department.

While a deputy was en route to take the report, Syverson called the department too. He later told a
deputy that when he encountered the bicyclists they were "hogging the road" and when he honked at
them, one of them threw water at his pickup and moved farther into the driving lane.

According to the report, Syverson said he stopped, backed up and drove around the bikes, but then
one of the bicyclists tried to throw his bike at Syverson's pickup. The deputy noted that Syverson
"demonstrated a dislike of bicyclists in general riding on highways" and told the deputy about a
previous incident when he notified authorities about a bicyclist on the interstate, only to be told
that it was perfectly legal for them to ride on the shoulder of the interstate.

"He was not happy with this," the sheriff's deputy's report says. "Syverson stated more than once to
me that he wished we could do more about bikes traveling on the roadway, that they are unlicensed
vehicles, do not pay taxes for the roadway, therefore have no right being on the roadway and
interfering with the travel of motorists."

In an interview with the Tribune, Sadosky said although it's a common reaction for a bicyclist to
throw water at an aggressive driver, his group did not do so. He said after the incident, he
contacted Syverson's insurance company repeatedly over the next few months, but didn't get anywhere
until he hired a lawyer. A few days later, she had a $3,000 check waiting for him, and he used it to
buy a new bike.

The way he understood it, he would not press charges in exchange for the out-of-court settlement
money. Syverson said the check came from his insurance company, and no criminal charges were filed
in the case.

"That incident was a long time ago, and it has no relevancy to the bill," Syverson said Tuesday.
"I'm not a vindictive person."

He said the incident didn't even cross his mind when he introduced the bill, which he said he did at
the request of a constituent who almost hit a bicyclist at dusk.

"I think the safety of our bicycle friends is more important than an incident that happened years
ago," he said.

But Sadosky believes the bill is designed "to get bicyclists off the road in North Dakota."

"He's not interested at all in building any bike paths for anybody," Sadosky said. "He clearly
picked on us. We weren't out there doing anything wrong. He clearly had some grudge against cyclists
that caused him to act in this pretty bizarre way."

The bill would require bicyclists who ride in the dark to have a front lamp and rear red light on
their bike, and wear a reflective vest. It would also require them to ride single file if they're on
a road and use a bike path if one is adjacent to the road they're riding on. Violations would bring
a $35 fine.

Syverson said he's gotten e-mails protesting his proposed bill from the Netherlands, Maine,
Michigan, California, Washington and Missouri. He said due to the heavy opposition to the
registration fee, he will suggest an amendment deleting that part of the bill.

Senate Bill 2391 will be heard by the Senate Transportation Committee at
10:15 a.m. Thursday.

 

[Tom Keats]

[email protected] (Isaac Brumer) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> Is this just a two-wheeled variety of a revenue producing "speed-trap?"

Vancouver BC has had to endure mandatory registration off-and-on throughout its existance (we're off
the hook at the moment).

The last couple of times were in reaction to bicycle thefts; registration was ostensibly introduced
to facilitate tracking-down stolen bikes. In the end, city call decided registration is just not
worth the effort or cost.

The ND thing sounds more like an attempted cash-grab to me. But I wouldn't be surprised if it cost
way more than $50 each to print, distribute and record all those registration stickers. And I'm sure
the staff who'd have to do all that work already have more important concerns in their jobs.

I think in this case, it'll be determined that bike registration is a financial loser. I hope
so, anyways.

cheers, Tom

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 20:54:13 -0500, "Riley Geary" <[email protected]> wrote:

I loved this:

>He said the incident didn't even cross his mind when he introduced the bill, which he said he did
>at the request of a constituent who almost hit a bicyclist at dusk.

Of course not. The thought hadn't even begun to speculate about the merest possiblity of crossing
his mind. He's a politician, after all, and they never lie do they?

and:

>"I think the safety of our bicycle friends is more important than an incident that happened years
>ago," he said.

really cracked me up! How does charging a cyclist $50 to ride on the roads built by his own taxes
improve his safety? Clearly Syverson is either ignorant himself or capitalising on the ignorance of
others in pushing the fiction that roads are paid for out of car taxation.

Maybe if the League of American Wheelmen had left their campaign for better roads at the boundary of
ND, leaving the state with the original rutted mud tracks, this bill wouldn't be an issue.

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.

 

[Brian Huntley]

[email protected] (Thomas Reynolds) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> I didn't know this. Davis, California is far and away the most bicycle friendly city I have ever
> been in or heard of. This registration requirement comes as quite a surprise.
>

Berkeley, California once had such a program, according to a sticker on one of my pre-owned bikes. I
think it's a 1972 sticker.

 

[Pooing Is Cool]

On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 07:38:14 -0700, Richard Kaiser <[email protected]> said:

>Selling a bike without a serial number may be illegal, check your local vehicle/traffic code.

As far as I can tell, my Lynx Extremist ain't got a serial number. I spent a half-hour looking for
the number and couldn't find it.

--

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