North Dakota Anti-Cycling Bill: SB 2391



Status
Not open for further replies.
[email protected] (Pooing Is Cool) wrote:

> 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 -------

Lynx engraves 'em on the inside of the downtube -- check it out!

.max

--
the part of <[email protected]> was played by maxwell monningh 8-p
 
Any state that elects Tom Daschel to the US Senate...gets what they deserve.

Nuf said.

"Riley Geary" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "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
 
On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 02:02:04 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc, "Paul Ilgen" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Any state that elects Tom Daschel to the US Senate...gets what they deserve.
>
If you mean Tom DASCHLE, he's from the other Dakota.
 
> This whole thing smells to me a lot like that legislative attempt in Texas last year to limit the
> roads usable by cyclists.

What was the result in Texas? I would think President Bush would have called some of his buddies
there and had it stopped since he is so into fitness, and good friends with Lance.

Michael

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.
>
> RichC
 
In article <[email protected]>, "Riley Geary" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Edward Dike, III" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Paul Ilgen" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:wyZ0a.23400$SD6.1572@sccrnsc03...
> > | Any state that elects Tom Daschel to the US Senate...gets what they
> > deserve.
> > |
> > | Nuf said.
> > |
> >
> > I concur. But how does that pertain to a No.Dakota bicycle licensing bill?
> > http://daschle.senate.gov/ ED3
> >
>
> Particularly when all 5 sponsors of SB 2391 are Republicans?

---

Señores:

FYI ... from an e-mail sent to me earlier this week.

Cheers,

Patrick O'Grady Mad Dog Media http://www.maddogmedia.com

---
Headline: Senator urging bike registration had run-in with bicyclists Publication Date: Wednesday,
February 5, 2003 Publication Page Number: 1 Publication Section: A Publication Name: Bismarck
Tribune Byline: Deena Winter Story Body: 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. (Reach Deena Winter at 223-8482 or [email protected].)
 
On Sat, 8 Feb 2003 07:51:22 -0800 in rec.bicycles.misc, Michael James Anderson
<[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.
>
> What was the result in Texas? I would think President Bush would have called some of his buddies
> there and had it stopped since he is so into fitness, and good friends with Lance.
>
the bill died, and lance's op/ed against it in the austin paper was a big factor.
 
Mitch Haley <[email protected]> writes:
> 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.

Well, that just changed:

>VERMONT HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES -- First Reading: 01/14/2003
>
>=A7 1136a. BICYCLE REGISTRATION
>
>(a) Bicycles used on public highways by persons over 15 years of age=20 shall be registered. The
> annual fee shall be $15.00. The fee for one=20 month shall be $8.00. Registrations may be
> issued by any town clerk=20 or by anyone selling bicycle touring services within the state.=20
> Registration stickers shall be supplied by the department of motor=20 vehicles. The person
> issuing the registration shall retain $1.00 and=20 remit the balance to the department of motor
> vehicles.=20
>

Status of bill: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/summary.cfm?Bill=3DH%
2E0003&Session=3D2004=20 Text of bill: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?
URL=3D/docs/2004/bills/intro/H-003.HTM

The bill is currently in the Vermont House of Representatives. It looks like it is in the House
Transportation Committee.
 
"Bob Bayn, Network & Computing Services" wrote:
>
>
> VERMONT HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES -- First Reading: 01/14/2003
>
> BICYCLE REGISTRATION
>
> (a) Bicycles used on public highways by persons over 15 years of age shall be registered. The
> annual fee shall be $15.00. The fee for one month shall be $8.00. Registrations may be issued
> by any town clerk or by anyone selling bicycle touring services within the state. registration
> stickers shall be supplied by the department of motor vehicles. The person issuing the
> registration shall retain $1.00 and remit the balance to the department of motor vehicles.

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/summary.cfm?Bill=H%2E0003

It still seems like a waste of time and money to collect $15, so I'm guessing the real aim is to
encourage people old enough to drive to use their cars instead of cycling.

Very strange, considering that Vermont residents currently enjoy more freedom than anybody else in
the country, if not the world.

I don't know who the "Slater" is who drafted the bill, but here's the fellow who introduced it into
the House:

Miller, Warren , P.O. Box 1 , Lake Elmore, VT 05657 888-2296

E-Mail: [email protected] warrenmiller@pshift Fax: 888-5758

Mitch.
 
Mitch wrote:
> ...here's the fellow who introduced it into the House:
>
> Miller, Warren , P.O. Box 1 , Lake Elmore, VT 05657 888-2296
>
>
> E-Mail: [email protected] warrenmiller@pshift Fax: 888-5758

No doubt someone will soon post that he, too, is a habitual bicyclist assaulter (see ND thread).

--Karen M.
 
"Paul Ilgen" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:wyZ0a.23400$SD6.1572@sccrnsc03...
> Any state that elects Tom Daschel to the US Senate...gets what they
deserve.
>
> Nuf said.

Tom DaschLE (not Daschel) is a SOUTH Dakota native, genius.

If the Republicans are so much in favor of less regulation, then how come Syverson and his 4
Republican buddies decided to increase regulation and taxes to cyclists?

Instead why aren't they fighting against the Trillion per annum subsides* the oil and auto industry
and their customers receive?

*Oil defense, property and sales tax spent on roads and cleaning up auto pollution runoff,
"free" parking, police, fire, and rescue services, structural, agricultural and health costs
from smog, lost time due to congestion and sprawl, health and lost time due to higher accident
rates, etc. etc. etc.
 
Touché

"Riley Geary" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Edward Dike, III" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Paul Ilgen" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:wyZ0a.23400$SD6.1572@sccrnsc03...
> > | Any state that elects Tom Daschel to the US Senate...gets what they
> > deserve.
> > |
> > | Nuf said.
> > |
> >
> > I concur. But how does that pertain to a No.Dakota bicycle licensing bill?
> > http://daschle.senate.gov/ ED3
> >
>
> Particularly when all 5 sponsors of SB 2391 are Republicans?
 
On Sun, 09 Feb 2003 12:50:44 -0500 in rec.bicycles.misc, Mitch Haley <[email protected]> wrote:

> I don't know who the "Slater" is who drafted the bill, but here's the fellow who introduced it
> into the House:
>
> Miller, Warren , P.O. Box 1 , Lake Elmore, VT 05657 888-2296
>
>
the author is unimportant. what IS important is to flood the next committee to hear the bill with
emails opposing it. vermont is heavily dependent on tourism, so it would be wise to emphasize that
bicycle tourists DO spend money on bed & breakfasts, restaurants, and other tourist attractions.

that committee is the house transportation committee. i have found that often emailing the chair is
sufficient, especially if you ask that your email be copied and shared with colleagues.

the members are

Representative Mazur of South Burlington, Chair, [email protected] Representative Obuchowski of
Rockingham, Vice-Chair, [email protected] Representative Allaire of Rutland City, [email protected]
Representative Brooks of Montpelier Representative Corcoran of Bennington, [email protected]
Representative Emmons of Springfield Representative Gray of Barre Town Representative McCullough of
Williston, [email protected] Representative Peaslee of Guildhall, [email protected]
Representative Schiavone of Shelburne Representative Winters of Swanton, [email protected]

To contact a Representative who does not have a listed e-mail addresses, direct mail to the office
of the Sergeant-At-Arms, [email protected]
 
Another odd bill. Sure, they provided a 'monthly' form of the registration (presumably for people
passing through) but even so, I doubt very much that the town clerks or DMVs are going to be open on
a weekend. So how does an out-of-state cyclist comply with the law if they're just passing through?
The state's only about 120 miles wide.

Or will they sell them mailorder? Hmm - maybe instead of painting my bike frame, I can decorate it
with registration stickers from all the places I might happen to pass through.
 
[email protected] (Dennis P. Harris) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> On Sun, 09 Feb 2003 12:50:44 -0500 in rec.bicycles.misc, Mitch Haley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I don't know who the "Slater" is who drafted the bill, but here's the fellow who introduced it
> > into the House:
> >
> > Miller, Warren , P.O. Box 1 , Lake Elmore, VT 05657 888-2296
> >
> >
> the author is unimportant. what IS important is to flood the next committee to hear the bill with
> emails opposing it. vermont is heavily dependent on tourism, so it would be wise to emphasize that
> bicycle tourists DO spend money on bed & breakfasts, restaurants, and other tourist attractions.
>
> that committee is the house transportation committee. i have found that often emailing the chair
> is sufficient, especially if you ask that your email be copied and shared with colleagues.
>
> the members are
>
> Representative Mazur of South Burlington, Chair, [email protected] Representative Obuchowski
> of Rockingham, Vice-Chair, [email protected] Representative Allaire of Rutland City,
> [email protected] Representative Brooks of Montpelier Representative Corcoran of Bennington,
> [email protected] Representative Emmons of Springfield Representative Gray of Barre Town
> Representative McCullough of Williston, [email protected] Representative Peaslee of
> Guildhall, [email protected] Representative Schiavone of Shelburne Representative Winters
> of Swanton, [email protected]
>
> To contact a Representative who does not have a listed e-mail addresses, direct mail to the office
> of the Sergeant-At-Arms, [email protected]

1. How is it that we have bike registrations popping up in different forms in different states all
at once? Is some national body experimenting with which bill actually gets passed, in order to
create a national "model" or does that model already exist?

2. So I can get a sticker from a town clerk or tour outfitter. What if the clerk is away fishing (or
cycling?) What if the outfitter is "out of stock" on stickers? Is there a grace period, or do I
get slapped with a fine? What if I'm not with an outfitter? If I keep a house in, say, Hoosick,
NY and want to go to Bennington, VT (7 miles) for a snack, do I pay $8 monthly/$15 annually for
the privilege of spending money there?

[a few years back, my wife and I were on vacation, heading into Sonoma, CA. (by car.) Broadway, the
main road into town goes from 40MPH to 25 very suddenly. We slowed down (especially since we had a
STOP sign and a right turn to negotiate.) Upon completing the turn, a cop car to our left flashed
its lights and pulled us over for not slowing down fast enough. We were ticketed, and the cop was
"courteous" enough to ask us if we need any help or information. We belived that we tourists had
been subjected to a deliberate "speed trap." We took a tour of the town square, but made to
conscious decision to buy nothing and eat nothing in Sonoma.]

3. I love visiting Vermont, I love cycling, and I love cycling in Vermont. I believe that good
things are worth paying for. I also understand that Vermont, like many states is having a budget
crunch. I would advise Vermont against any action that would diminish the "goodwill" it has
earned with tourists in general and cyclists in particular.

Isaac Brumer
 
"Thomas Reynolds" <[email protected]> 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.
>

Santa Cruz is another example of a highly bicycle friendly city. There are more bicyclists here of a
greater cross section than anywhere I have ever been. With it comes a much greater awareness of
cyclists as valid targets for law enforcement by the police. Cyclists routinely get expensive
tickets here. We also have a mandatory registration ordinance. I have never heard of it being
enforced. Although, one time I witnessed a somewhat heated discussion between several cyclists and a
police officer over not crossing the bike lane boundry. When the officer didn't want to hear any
more he threatened to check for registrations. That ended the discussion.
 
On 10 Feb 2003 10:35:00 -0800 in rec.bicycles.misc, [email protected] (Isaac Brumer) wrote:

> 3. I love visiting Vermont, I love cycling, and I love cycling in Vermont. I believe that good
> things are worth paying for. I also understand that Vermont, like many states is having a
> budget crunch. I would advise Vermont against any action that would diminish the "goodwill" it
> has earned with tourists in general and cyclists in particular.

don't tell us. tell the vermont house transportation committee.
 
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 20:18:52 -0800 in rec.bicycles.misc, "one of the six billion"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> one time I witnessed a somewhat heated discussion between several cyclists and a police officer
> over not crossing the bike lane boundry.

the answer is to carry a printed summary of the state traffic code bike laws with you, so you can
cite the correct section. most cops will back down if you can cite the correct law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.